Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Hardship Tribunal, Wigan

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the names, addresses and occupations of members of the hardship tribunal for the Wigan area.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I will send the information to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of these people, who determine who shall and who shall not join the Forces, are of military age themselves?

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend had better examine the information when I send it to him.

Prosecution, Eastbourne

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Fred Colbran, Eastbourne, was recently prosecuted by his Ministry for lateness at work; that he was fined; that the doctor who examined him had declared, in spite of the man's protestations to the contrary, that he was fit for work; that he collapsed at work; was that doctor employed by his Ministery to examine Colbran; what fee was paid; and what action has been taken against the doctor for his error in diagnosing the man's ailment.

Mr. Bevin: I have written fully to my hon. Friend about this case.

Mr. Davies: Cannot my right hon. Friend tell those doctors who are employed by him in examining these cases, to be a little more careful? There is no sense in telling a man to go to work if, on arriving there, he collapses.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot make doctors perfect, however I try.

Redundant Workers

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Labour if he intends to release a sufficient supply of labour forthwith in order that development work and post-war products can now proceed.

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to take steps to release forthwith for other purposes those workpeople in munition factories who are relatively idle owing to changes in production programmes.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) on 28th September, of which I am sending them copies.

Sit Robert Young: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the probable redundancy of 4,000 workers in the Ministry of Aircraft Production factories during the next two months; whether any steps are being or will be taken to ensure that the employees concerned will be assured of full employment in the same or other factories; and can he say the nature of the work on which they will be employed.

Mr. Bevin: About 2,000 workers are expected to become available over the next three months from the factories to which I understand the Question refers. No difficulty is anticipated in placing these workers in alternative employment as they become available. I am not in a position to specify its precise nature.

Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to see that in the transfer of these men, their home situation is taken into account?

Mr. Bevin: I have given instructions that where people have to be released, regard should be paid to those who have been directed away from home. If vacancies are available, they should return to their home districts.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a growing number of workers are becoming redundant in war factories in South Wales and, with the return of discharged men from the Forces, the unemployed figures are rising; and what steps are being taken to provide employment for these people.

Mr. Bevin: Only a small number of workpeople have become available in South Wales in recent months owing to changes in munitions production, and practically all of them have been reabsorbed in other work. There has, therefore, been no significant rise in unemployment.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great apprehension in some of the valleys in South Wales about the pockets of unemployment which are growing? Is it not a fact that these are hidden in the statistics because they are kept in what is called an "available pool," and are not included in the general statistics? Will he keep this matter under close examination?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. Friends not to intensify the apprehension. The difficulty of transferring civilian workers is great enough, in all conscience. The Board of Trade, ourselves and the Supply Departments are working in close co-operation to minimise pockets of unemployment, but in any change-over some of these pockets are bound to be created.

Government Factories (Appeal Boards)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour under what legal provision the existence of substituted appeal boards in Government factories is sanctioned; and whether he is satisfied that managements of such factories should have such preferential treatment in the hearing of appeals by workmen.

Mr. Bevin: Article 9 of the Essential Work (General Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1942, and corresponding articles in certain Orders applying to particular industries provide that in undertakings carried on by the Crown the local appeal board may be a committee of a joint industrial council or similar body, with an independent chairman. This is a joint arrangement, and there is no question of any preferential treatment being accorded to the management.

Mr. Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these appeals are heard in employers' premises, where there is not the impartial atmosphere that one gets in a Ministry of Labour Department? Often workers are at a disadvantage. I have had a number of complaints and I would like my right hon. Friend to look into the matter.

Mr. Bevin: I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the impartiality of my Department. If he has any cases in mind in which he thinks the conduct of proceedings has not been right, I shall be happy to look into them.

Called-Up Men (Dismissal)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that some employers, in order to avoid their legal responsibilities when men are discharged from the Forces of re-employing them, dismiss them from their employment just before they are due to be called up, especially in those occupations which are not covered by the Essential Work Order where the National Service officer could intervene; and what steps does he propose to take in this matter.

Mr. Bevin: It is an offence under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act to terminate employment with intent to evade the provisions of the Act. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have the details, I will inquire into it.

Mr. Davies: Would not an employer, doing what is suggested in this question, in effect be sabotaging the intention of Parliament?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot add to my answer.

Scientific Research Apparatus (Manufacture)

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are made by him to assess the labour requirements of firms in this country manufacturing scientific research apparatus; to what extent the Director of Medical Supplies is concerned in this matter; and whether, in view of the need of freeing industrial research at the earliest opportunity from all unnecessary impediments, he will reconsider the existing restrictions imposed on the supply of labour to makers of scientific research apparatus.

Mr. Bevin: No particular restrictions are imposed on the supply of labour to makers of scientific research apparatus, whose requirements are assessed by District Manpower Boards in the normal way, if necessary after inspection by labour supply inspectors. Where appropriate, the Government Department concerned is consulted, this being the Ministry of Supply in any matter concerning the Director of Medical Supplies.

Directed Workers (Married Women)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider whether under existing circumstances he can now allow all married women who have homes of their own to look after but who have been directed to various forms of employment to leave such employment if they so desire.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I regret that the demands of war production and the maintenance of necessary civilian supplies and services will not permit of any general adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion in present circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very grave social consequences involved? Will he undertake that, as soon as circumstances permit, he will release these women, if necessary by successive age groups?

Mr. Bevin: The whole matter of release is being gone into, and I cannot give any pledge at this stage. I hope at a later date to issue a White Paper, as has been done for soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of releasing elderly and middle-aged married women—those over 45—from their present employment?

Mr. Bevin: That is being considered but I have two difficulties. I have been pressed to release people for the re-establishment of our trade, and I take the view up to now that if I can retain in the munitions industries people who will peter out of those industries altogether, and thus release other people to get our trade going, I shall get a balance which will enable trade to start and still keep munitions going.

Mr. Bellenger: Will this White Paper, which I take it will deal with industrial demobilisation, be issued before the close of the Session?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot promise that.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, before the White Paper is published, he will place in the Library an index so that we can find all these White Papers?

Mr. Bevin: I should have thought that the hon. Member who spends so much time in the House would know everything that is here.

Bomb Damage Repair (Work Allocation)

Mr. Colman: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the work allocated to building operatives working on bomb damaged houses is as near as possible to their places of residence in order to ensure that as little time is wasted as possible in starting and finishing work.

Mr. Bevin: It is my duty to endeavour to provide the number of building trade operatives for the repair of the bomb damaged houses in London, but their allocation to the actual employers is made by my noble Friend the Minister of Works and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Having regard to the magnitude and the area of damage in London, it is not always possible to guarantee to allocate men to work near their place of residence, but in so far as it is possible and within the limits of the available accommodation and the need for mobility of labour to deal with this grave situation, I am assured that endeavours will be made to do this.

CATERING WAGES COMMISSION

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour what changes have been made, or are pending, in the members and officers of the Catering Wages Commission.

Mr. Bevin: There has recently been a change in the secretaryship of the Commission, but no changes have been made, or are pending, in the membership of the Commission.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister say what was the previous occupation of the new secretary?

Mr. Bevin: He is a member of the Civil Service, and once upon a time was a secretary in my Department. He has been right through the Civil Service.

Sir J. Mellor: Without making any reflection whatsoever on the qualifications of this gentleman, may I ask the Minister whether this appointment is intended to promote the independence of the Catering Wages Commission?

Mr. Bevin: I very much resent the suggestion that a member of the Civil Service will interfere with the independence of any body.

Sir J. Mellor: Having regard to the very close association—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of money standing to the credit of the Unemployment Fund on 30th June, 1944.

Mr. Bevin: At 30th June, 1944, the balance of the Unemployment Fund, including investments at cost, was about £260,500,000 on the General Account and £8,100,000 on the Agricultural Account.

Mr. Brown: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend or his Department to use this money for the purposes of administration, in connection with the proposed Social Insurance Scheme?

Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. Friend had better await the Debate on the White Paper on Social Security.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask to whom the Minister has lent all this large sum of money which he controls?

Mr. Bevin: I think the Government have borrowed it. In spite of what was said in 1931 there seems to be no trouble about it.

Sir H. Williams: But would the Minister answer my question: to whom has he lent all the money?

Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend state the amount of money accumulating week by week?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Released Men(Replacement)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to call up

to the Forces young men at present deferred to replace those released from the Forces under the demobilisation plan on an age group basis.

Mr. Bevin: As explained in the White Paper recently published, numbers of young men, including some of those at present deferred, will be called up in order to increase the rate at which older men with war service may be released.

Mr. Bellenger: Will that call-up be on an age group basis, similar to the call-up to the Armed Forces during the war?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Civil Engineering

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour whether the urgent reconstruction employments, mentioned in Cmd. 6548, paragraph 11, include civil engineering.

Mr. Bevin: As stated on page 4 of the White Paper Cmd. 6548, the numbers that will be released under Class B will be small, and will be mainly required to supplement the labour force available for building houses against the time when sailors, soldiers, and airmen will be returning in large numbers to civil life. I do not anticipate that this will cover men engaged in civil engineering, except so far as it may be directly required for housing developments.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is there not an urgent need already in London for engineering assistants of the type described in the Question to direct repairs to damaged houses?

Mr. Bevin: That is not in the Question. The Question asks whether I will release people for civil engineering.

Mr. E. Walkden: Does not the urgency exist already?

EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (TRADING ADVICE)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the arrangement made between the confectionery trade organisation and the British Legion, by which ex-Service men may obtain free and expert advice on all details before starting or restarting in business as independent traders; and if he will take steps to ensure


that all other trade and industrial organisations will make similar agreements.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware that the Confectionery Trade Council proposes to establish advisory panels to assist ex-Service men and women desirous of entering the confectionery trade. I have no power to ensure that all other trade and industrial organisations make similar arrangements, but I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and other Ministers concerned.

Mr. Graham White: In the arrangements made with the Catering Wages Commission will training schemes be kept in view?

Mr. Bevin: This is a question of resettling people in business in the confectionery trade. Instead of a man investing his money without guidance the Confectionery Trade Council have undertaken to give guidance on the best way to make his business efficient.

EQUAL PAY

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Labour whether Recommendation 9, embodying the principle of the rate for the job, was supported by vote at the recent I.L.O. Conference by the British delegates, the employers' delegate and the workers' delegate.

Mr. Bevin: The paragraphs referred to by the hon. Member form part of the recommendation concerning employment organisation in the transition from war to peace. On the final record vote at the Conference, the British Government, employers' and workers' delegates voted for this recommendation.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it too much to ask that the Government should apply here what they advocate abroad?

Mr. Bevin: We did not advocate it, we just voted for it.

Miss Ward: Was there any special discussion on the point?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Labour what trades unions

have adopted the principle of the same rate of pay for men and women; and how many agreements have been reached and implemented between employers and trades unions.

Mr. Bevin: There are numerous collective agreements covering a wide range of industrial employment which provide that women who are replacing men without any additional supervision or assistance shall be paid—normally after a probationary period—the man's rate for the job. I am not able however to give a comprehensive list of the unions or agreements concerned.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask that the same principle should immediately be applied to temporary staff of the Civil Service, who are put on permanent jobs?

WOMEN TEACHERS' TRAINING COURSES (AGERESTRICTION)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider, in consultation with the departments, the existing arrangement whereby no girl over 19 years of age is given permission to enter teacher's training courses; and whether he will raise the age limit to 21.

Mr. Bevin: I have recently been in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland on this matter and have decided that some relaxation can now be made in the age restrictions on the entry of women to training colleges for teachers. Women up to the age of 19¼ on 1st October, 1944, will be eligible to take courses at training colleges, and women over that age will be eligible to enter upon such training if they are not immediately required for employment essential to the war effort.

Commander King-Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to many young women who wish to go in for teaching?

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that, if necessary, they will go to a university for a course?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think the universities are ready to take them yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Black-out Regulations

Mr. Higgs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will permit lights to be shown in factories and industrial buildings situated in the Midlands between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. in order to do away with the black-out in the numerous buildings which are not being used for nightshift.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The recent relaxations for domestic lighting apply equally to factories. I regret that, for obvious reasons, the Government cannot yet relax all restrictions during any part of the black-out period; but I shall not hesitate to take any opportunity which arises of making any further relaxations which are possible without prejudice to national security.

Mr. Higgs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many industrial workers during the winter do not see daylight between Monday and Saturday? Does he not consider that the removal of the permanent black-out would be beneficial to health and production?

Mr. Morrison: We have done what we could to ease the situation. I will keep the matter under review, but I do not think, at this stage, it would be wise to make a major breach of this character in the black-out.

Mr. Bowles: Would my right hon. Friend consider removing the little crosses on the traffic lights and allowing them to show at their proper strength?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question altogether.

Mr. Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend any reason for keeping the lighting restrictions on when the flying bombs make no distinction between light and darkness?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree. But my hon. Friend is not sure, I take it, that we may not be attacked by piloted aircraft.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he has any statement to make as to the removal or diminution in the severity of the black-out regulations.

Mr. H. Morrison: There is nothing which I can add at present to the Answer

which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 26th September.

Sir I. Fraser: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give full consideration to the question whether, on balance, the loss of life and limb and health and temper might not be less, if we went back to full lights and took a chance, now that the enemy is in such a bad way; and particularly will he consider the position on the roads?

Mr. Morrison: All these factors are fully considered, and the matter is reviewed steadily as we go on. I want to lift the thing entirely as quickly as I can, but I do not want to bring to the population of London raids which could otherwise be avoided.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the perpetuation of the black-out in London due to deliberate policy, or to delay in introducing new apparatus? Mr. Morrison: We are in a difficulty about apparatus to secure better lighting. The local authorities are presented with an exceedingly difficult task. I am inclined to think that, for practical reasons, it may be a choice between maintaining things as they are and going back to full lighting as soon as it becomes a sound policy.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Will my right hon. Friend consider making an appeal to householders to remove the unnecessary severity of the black-out, with a view to assisting pedestrians to see their way about the streets?

Mr. Morrison: We gave the relaxation largely for that purpose, but householders have their own practical difficulties. The curious thing is that in some parts, the black-out is now more effective than it was before the relaxation. That, in itself, has some significance in relation to the state of public opinion.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not due to the fact that as soon as the hooter goes, you have to put the black-out up?

Mr. Morrison: Not entirely by any means.
29. Mr. Jewson asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether


he will now relax the restrictions on headlights of motor-cars.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have considered carefully whether restrictions on motor car headlamps could now be relaxed, but I fear there is no satisfactory intermediate stage between the use of masked headlamps and the use of full headlights. The latter would be visible from great distances and would mark out main roads and towns from the air. Dazzle to other road users would be seriously increased and the change to masked headlights on an alert or on passing into specially vulnerable areas would be impracticable. On the other hand, it would be obviously dangerous to insist that headlamps should be switched off altogether on an alert. I am afraid, therefore that the restrictions on motor car headlights cannot at present foe relaxed.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister of War Transport is aware that a great many American trucks landed in this country have no dimmers and that it is positively dangerous to meet a convoy on the road at night?

Mr. Morrison: That is, of course, one of the facts in the case which I put to the House. I am very sorry about it and I will look into it, but I am afraid that this must be the position generally at the moment. If I can relax it later I will.

Mr. Sorensen: What does my right hon. Friend mean by "looking into it"? Is it not the case that a large number of American cars are blazing along the roads with greater illumination than our cars are allowed?

Mr. Morrison: When I say I will look into it, I mean I will examine it. The Ministry of War Transport is involved and also, I imagine, the police and the Service Departments.

Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices with the War Department to ensure that military vehicles are brought into line in the interests of public safety and are allowed the same lighting which is allowed for civilian vehicles?

Mr. Morrison: I will do that.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to better lighting for the buses?

Mr. Morrison: I think that has been done.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reasons for refusing to permit the removal of the painted area of railway carriage windows at the present time, and whether, in view of the fact that this form of black-out in the winter months precludes daylight adequate to enable easy reading, he will now agree to the removal of these black-out areas on the windows of railway passenger rolling stock.

Mr. H. Morrison: Lighting in trains has recently been reviewed with the object of allowing as much light as possible for passengers during the winter. One improvement which has been made is that full lighting without shades is being restored in those carriages fitted with blinds. This important relaxation necessarily involves the retention of the painted area on carriage windows to prevent too great a spill of light.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the painting on the carriage windows stops practically all light in the dark winter days coming into the carriage and that no experts who have been consulted agree that the present regulations hinder raiders; and will he give further consideration to the matter, considering that the lighting inside the compartments is now only one-third of what it was before the war?

Mr. Morrison: The night lighting in compartments fitted with suitable blinds can be full and without shades. It necessarily follows that there is increased risk of light getting outside. Therefore, the painted portion must remain. If the painted area is all over the window, as my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated, I should think that the railway companies are being a bit out of proportion. I will look into that point. It is possible that the railway companies have overdone it, and if there is anything of that kind I will take it up with them.

Commander Agnew: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend allows good lighting inside buses without the windows being painted, will he allow the same thing in trains?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. and gallant Friend has seen an R.A.F. aircraft practising at diving on a train, he will realise the difference between trains and buses in this matter.

Regional Commissioners

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any statement to make on the future work of Regional Civil Commissioners and their staffs.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir, not at present. But my policy has always been to adjust the regional organisation to public need and this policy is being maintained.

Sir R. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an announcement has been made in Scotland that the Regional Commissioner and his officers will cease their functions, and why should Scotland be free more quickly than England?

Mr. Morrison: Any implication that the Regional Commissioners are a menace to freedom is unfair. They have rendered great public service to the community and deserve the highest respect for the work they have done. The Scottish diminution was made after consultation with me and it extended to the district commissioners. I have similar proposals under consideration for the whole country, but it must be gradual. Indeed, reducing the Civil Defence organisation must, for a time, increase the work of the regional officers.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (SERVICE REGISTER)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make enquiries of all, or of a sufficient sample of, constituency returning officers so as to enable him to say, approximately, what is the relation between the number of registration forms received from the three fighting services and the number of men and women eligible to register in these three services.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) on 3rd August, I shall be prepared at a later date to consider giving information as to the ratio

between the number of counterparts received by the Central National Registration Office and the number of men and women in the three fighting Services eligible to register; but my information is that at the present date there is still in the hands of many of the electoral registration officers a number of Service declarations of Which, owing to the pressure of work on these officers, the counterparts have not yet been completed and sent to the Central Office. This work is less urgent than other electoral registration work because delay in transmitting the counterpart does not affect the Service voter's right to be placed on the electoral register, which dates from the receipt of his declaration by the electoral registration officer. To call for special returns from the electoral registration officer is, as I have previously stated, a course I am reluctant to take because any addition to the burdens falling on these Officers is liable to interfere with essential work on electoral registration, and the process of receiving Service declarations is still going on—fresh batches of such declarations are reaching the electoral registration officers from day to day.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday I got an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport which revealed that only 2½ per cent, of Merchant Navy personnel has, so far, been registered? If one Department can reply, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman state the approximate percentage?

Mr. Morrison: That is an effort to set one Department against another—which sometimes is desirable, and sometimes is not. I am covering a much wider field than the limited field of the Ministry of War Transport.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to implement the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference suggesting the automatic registration of members of the fighting forces.

Mr. H. Morrison: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter at an early date.

AUXILIARY POLICE ASSOCIATION (PAY CLAIM)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet furnished the Auxiliary Police Association with a reply to their request for arbitration on their pay claim.

Mr. H. Morrison: I propose to discuss this matter with representatives of the Association, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Brown: Is not the Home Secretary aware that this request for arbitration was made as long ago as December last year? Does it require 10 months for the Home Office to make up its mind?

Mr. Morrison: I forget when the request was made, but life is not as simple as my hon. Friend thinks at the Home Office. A lot of complicated matters have to be dealt with, and the Home Office has other things to do.

Mr. Brown: Granting that the Home Office have other things to attend to, surely the Home Secretary must recognise that a delay of 10 months in dealing with a wage question is indefensible from any point of view?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

DEFENCE REGULATIONS (DETENTION POWER)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now withdraw those Defence Regulations which empower him to detain British subjects and citizens of Allied Nations without trial or charge.

Mr. H. Morrison: The time has not arrived when it would be safe to dispense with these Regulations or to release en bloc the persons detained under them, but as regards the review of the cases of persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Tuesday, 26th September. As regards aliens detained because deportation hi wartime is impracticable or prejudicial to the war effort, the considerations are somewhat different. It is intended to deport the aliens concerned to the countries to which they belong, when deportation again becomes prac-

ticable. Pending deportation, aliens are detained only if their detention is necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm or the maintenance of public order.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most people will be heartily glad to see the end of these Regulations, which are so alien to the whole spirit and traditions of this country?

POLICE WAR RESERVES

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will stop the discharge of police war reserves, for disposal by the Minister of Labour, having regard to the consequent strain upon the police and special constabulary.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. I am very conscious of the heavy burden borne by the police under war conditions, and of the additional strain on their resources which must inevitably result from any further reduction in their establishments; but in view of the general stringency of the man-power position I would not feel justified in re-opening the decision of the Government that the police must make their contribution to help meet the needs of the Armed Forces and of industry. As regards special constables, they have given magnificent service and they deserve any concessions that can be made to them. Chief constables have been asked to review the arrangements for their employment and to reduce as far as possible their hours of duty, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, the reduction in the number of regular police renders even more necessary and valuable the services of the special constabulary.

Sir J. Mellor: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile the two parts of his answer? How does he reconcile the discharge of these men on the one hand, with an alleviation of the duties of special constables on the other?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot. All I can say is that I am trying to do the best I can in the circumstances. As a matter of fact, I thought I would put in the bit about the special constables to please my hon. Friend.

PRISONERS (HARD LABOUR SENTENCES)

Mr. Benson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to make a statement on the subject of hard labour in prisons.

Mr. H. Morrison: I shall shortly be laying before Parliament the necessary amendment to the Prison Rules to abolish the requirement that a male prisoner should be deprived of a mattress for the first fourteen days of a sentence of hard labour. All those concerned with prison administration are agreed in recommending the abolition of this survival of the idea that arbitrary physical discomfort is of any value either as a deterrent or for reformative purposes. As the House may be aware, many of the then existing conditions of a "hard labour" sentence were removed during the last war in order that prisoners might be able to assist the war effort by engaging in productive work. It seems appropriate, therefore, that this war, to which prisoners have made so considerable a contribution by their hard work, should see the end of this feature of a sentence of hard labour. Certain technical differences between a sentence of imprisonment and one of hard labour will remain, but so far as treatment in prison normally is concerned there will now be no distinction between these sentences.

Mr. Benson: Does my right lion. Friend realise that his answer will give very considerable satisfaction?

Mr. Goldie: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that distinctions will still be retained between these two forms of treatment in order to keep the hardened criminals separate from prisoners of lesser criminal tendencies?

Mr. Morrison: I think that question had better be put on the Paper, because I am not quite sure about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Direct-Grant School Places

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Minister of Education what is his policy in regard to the unanimous recommendations of the Fleming Committee contained in Scheme A; and how he proposes that places at direct-grant schools should be

filled when the number of applications exceeds the vacancies.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): Before reaching a final decision on this matter, I am awaiting the considered opinions of the Governing Bodies' Associations and the Headmasters' Conference on the Fleming Report. I expect to receive them in the course of this month.

School Accommodation, London

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that all children of school age in the London and the Greater London area are now able to receive full time education; what percentage are doing so; and approximately the number of schoolchildren in this area at the present time compared with a year ago.

Mr. Butler: The position as regards both school accommodation and the number of children in Greater London is constantly changing, as repairs to damaged buildings become possible and as children return home from reception areas. The latter figure is also conjectural since it is impossible immediately to trace those chldren who return under private arrangements. In these circumstances I cannot require the local education authorities concerned to furnish statistics which would of necessity be inexact.

Mr. Sorensen: Has not the Minister some kind of impression, or some approximate idea, of how many children are not receiving education just now or are receiving only part-time education?

Mr. Butler: The position is not as good as I should like it to be. I cannot give the hon. Member exact statistics, but when I can give him an indication I will do so.

Town Children (Agricultural Courses)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Education whether any arrangements are being made to provide special agricultural courses for urban children and, in particular, for those children who, as evacuees, have developed a desire to work on the land.

Mr. Butler: The possibility of providing special educational facilities to fit young people from the towns for work on the land is one of the many questions now under consideration by my Depart-


ment in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. In the meantime I am glad to say there has been a notable increase during the war of interest in the schools, both rural and urban, in food production and gardening, and I have recently made available to local education authorities a number of films on rural and agricultural subjects.

Site Purchases, Essex

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Education why permission has been refused for the purchase of land in connection with the needs of the South Hornchurch Council and Romford intermediate schools.

Mr. Butler: Approval of the purchase of the Romford site has not been refused: the local education authority has been asked for further particulars, which I am awaiting. I understand that the South Hornchurch site will not be required for some years, and it has been suggested to the local education authority that they should approach the local planning authority with a view to the site being reserved for educational purposes pending the time when its use for those purposes may become necessary.

Secondary Schools (Preparatory Departments)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Education if it is his policy that the junior schools attached to maintained and aided secondary schools shall be allowed to continue to exist provided that they are self supporting and make no call on public funds.

Mr. Butler: The indefinite continuance of preparatory departments as integral parts of secondary schools maintained under the Education Act, 1944, would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Act, which enjoins local education authorities to have regard to the need for securing that primary and secondary education are provided in separate schools.

Mr. Lipson: Does the Minister's answer mean placing direct-grant schools in a privileged position? In view of the very useful purpose these schools serve, is it really necessary to give that impression?

Mr. Butler: My answer covers the ordinary preparatory departments. In respect of the direct-grant schools, it

should be remembered that no grants are payable under the present grant regulations in respect of junior pupils in schools in receipt of direct grant.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that these schools make no call upon public funds, and could he not therefore reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler: The exact position of this matter, like so many other matters in the world of education, is very complicated. My first answer covered the normal preparatory departments; my second answer covered the junior pupils in direct-grant schools; all I can add is that there is nothing to stop a junior or primary school going on as an independent school if it wants to do so.

School Meals

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Education how long he estimates it will take to extend the system of school dinners for all children over the whole of the schools, elementary and secondary, respectively, coming under his Ministry.

Mr. Butler: I informed the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 25th May of this year that a three-year programme was envisaged for a scheme calculated to cover 75 per cent, of the children in the schools to which reference is made in the Question. Owing to the urgent claims on building labour, and circumstances arising out of the war, extension of this period may be inevitable, and I should not be justified in giving any more exact estimate at present.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not important that the matter should be expedited, in view of the Government's proposal of a very inadequate cash allowance proposed for children, or else that it should be supplemented by a complete system to tree school meals? How long are the children to wait for these school meals?

Mr. Butler: This great social reform in the feeding of children at school has probably been advanced more rapidly than any other reform during the last three years, from a very small figure to a very large figure indeed. I am hoping that this advance will be intensified in the light of the circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers, although I could not accept all the remarks she has made as being exact.

Miss Rathbone: If there is a delay, and not all children are able to get school meals, could not some cash allowance be given equivalent to the school meals? Why should it be left to chance whether children get them or not?

War Service (Interrupted Study Courses)

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Education the rule to be applied to students whose studies have been interrupted by war service and, seeing that many were in this position when called up, what rule is to be applied to them when demobilisation takes place.

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Main-waring) on 14th October, 1943, a copy of which I am sending him.

LORD SOULBURY (CHAIRMANSHIPS)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the appointment of Lord Soulbury as Chairman of the Commission to consider a new Constitution for Ceylon, new chairmen are to be appointed to the Assistance Board and the Burnham Committee.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As the absence of Lord Soul-bury in Ceylon is not expected to be unduly prolonged, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not think a fresh appointment in his place as chairman of the Assistance Board will be necessary. Miss Violet Markham, the deputy chairman of the Board, will officiate as chairman during his absence. As regards the Burnham Committee, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Education, will, I understand, consider nominating a deputy-chairman, in accordance with practice adopted in the past in similar circumstances.

Mrs. Keir: Does my right hon. Friend think it is in the best interests of these two important Committees to be presided over by the same person, especially in view of the fact that the Government have sent Lord Soulbury abroad on a totally different subject?

Mr. Attlee: No doubt all those considerations have been fully taken into account.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister was absent for nearly three months and it was not thought necessary to dispense with his services?

Mr. Bellenger: Is there an absence of suitable gentlemen who can go to Ceylon? If the right hon. Gentleman wants any candidates for these positions, why should he deprive the Assistance Board of its officers? Why not remember this House, for example?

WAR GRATUITIES

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has now been reached as to the payment of gratuities to officers and other ranks of the Army, Navy and R.A.F. who are released from service.

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon Friend the Prime Minister gave on Tuesday last to the hon. Members for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger).

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when we are likely to have a definite answer?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, and I cannot add anything to the answer then given.

Commander Agnew: When the right hon. Gentleman can give a substantive reply, will it include a statement about prize money to the Royal Navy?

GERMANY (ARMISTICE TERMS)

Sir William Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether, in fixing the armistice terms, the desirability will be borne in mind of organised bodies of Germans being sent to make good the devastation, other than military, which was deliberately organised in occupied countries.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Long-Term Policy

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the Government's long-term policy for the future of the agricultural industry.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): No, Sir.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many months have elapsed since the Debate took place on agriculture in the course of Which he promised a further statement on this matter? May we assume that the reply will be forthcoming before the General Election?

Mr. Hudson: I think it is a hypothetical question.

Mr. De la Bère: Why does the Minister always indulge in these mysterious strategic silences? Are they not painful, and very unsatisfactory?

Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the absence of any adequate reply to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Thermos Flasks (Farm Workers, Essex)

Mr. Oswald Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the fact that the Essex County Branch of the National Farmers Union are refusing to allocate permits to obtain Thermos flasks to farmers for their workers unless the farmers undertake to subscribe to the funds of the union; and if he has approved such a use being made of the right to distribute these permits.

Mr. Hudson: I understand that the Essex Branch of the N.F.U. does not refuse to issue the necessary certificate to non-members. The latter part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Lewis: Can I show the Minister a letter from the union, signed by the secretary, making the condition that the man was asked to pay his subscription, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Hudson: Certainly, Sir.

Ex-Service Men (Small Holdings)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make some pronouncement as to what steps the Government are taking to assist the ex-Service men to obtain small holdings on their demobilisation.

Mr. Hudson: This matter is being considered as part of the general proposals concerned with the return of ex-Service men to civilian life. I should add that it is not considered desirable in the interests

of the ex-Service men for those who have not had previous agricultural experience to start farming on their own without practical training in farm work. Steps are being taken to arrange for the training of ex-Service men for all forms of agricultural work.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of ex-Service men having training if they desire it?

Mr. Hudson: Naturally.

Foot and Mouth Disease (Pig Swill)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the 70 outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain during the present year and as in almost every instance the original outbreak in each locality has been due to swill-feeding or contact with packing materials from frozen meat, he will take steps to enforce either centralised processing of all swill before purchase by pig owners or the compulsory boiling of swill by all swill producers where, in the opinion of the Inspector of the Ministry, raw meat is likely to be found in the swill.

Mr. Hudson: Arrangements have been made in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply for the central processing of swill in the great majority of large urban areas, and I am anxious to encourage the extension of the practice. Where central processing is impracticable, swill should, if possible, be boiled before it is brought on to the premises of pig keepers; but a compulsory order to that effect would seriously diminish the quantity of swill available without reducing certain important dangers, such as the danger of infection from the household swill produced on the premises of the thousands of small pig keepers. I think, therefore, that the present Order putting upon pig keepers the onus of seeing that all unprocessed swill is boiled before it is fed or brought into contact with animals affords the most practicable safeguard, and I have recently taken further steps designed to secure its more strict enforcement.

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there have been 11 outbreaks of this disease since the beginning of August, and that seven of these were directly attributable


to swill, and will he bear in mind that it is the swill producer who should be responsible for treatment of swill, not the pig feeder?

Mr. Hudson: I have already stated that the great trouble we are up against is that some swill and other waste products, liable to carry infection, actually come into contact with infection on the premises where pigs are kept—such as the pig keeper's own household swill—and the pigs get infected before there is any chance of avoiding the swill.

Tractors

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has made arrangements, either by manufacture or import, for an increased supply of tracklaying tractors for agricultural use.

Mr. Hudson: The requirements notified to the United States Government for 1945, together with outstanding approved requirements for previous years, cover the replacement of worn out agricultural crawler tractors and an appreciable increase in the tractor strength. The extent to which these requirements can be met, however, will depend on the numbers that can be released from the United States, the urgent demands for crawler tractors for military purposes and the needs of other countries. No arrangements have yet been made for manufacture in this country, but proposals are under consideration in consultation with other Departments concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the importation of spare parts for these tractors, as many of these tractors are not working for some time because spare parts are not available?

Mr. Hudson: That is being done on a considerable scale.

Dispossessed Owner-Farmers

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Agriculture by what means a dispossessed owner-farmer may, after a reasonable period, exercise his right as landlord to recover possession of his farm when it becomes apparent that its condition is becoming seriously impaired by the bad husbandry and management of the tenant appointed by the county war agricultural executive committee.

Mr. Hudson: A dispossessed owner-farmer has no such right as that suggested by the hon. Member. It is, however, a committee's duty to see that the lands in their possession are properly farmed, and if the hon. Member has any evidence that this is not being done in a particular case, I will have inquiries made, if he will give me the particulars.

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Minister of Agriculture why county war agricultural executive committees are not required to pay rent quarterly in respect of farms taken over by them from owner-farmers; what interest rates are payable by them on arrears of such rent beyond quarter days, and whether they are entitled to deduct from the sums paid, debts in respect of tithe for which a court order has been obtained against the owner, and the terms of which order as regards repayments have been and are being complied with.

Mr. Hudson: The periods at which compensation is payable in respect of farms of which possession is taken by county war agricultural executive committees, are a matter for agreement with the owner of the land at the time compensation is settled. Interest at 2 per cent, is payable on any arrears. Where debts are due to the Crown in respect of arrears of tithe rent charge or tithe redemption annuities, deduction may be made in cases of default from the compensation payable to the landowner. No such action is generally taken where the terms of an order of the court made for recovery are being observed.

Mr. Loverseed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in many cases, the compensation payable to the dispossessed farmer is in fact the only income which he has; and can he give some reason as to why the interest payable on arrears should be less than that which anyone can get from National Savings Certificates? Further, will he investigate a case in which a court order is existing for tithe, which is being paid at the rate of £25 a quarter, and in which case, on the Ministry's instructions, a sum of £190 has been deducted from the compensation?

Mr. Hudson: It is quite clear, and it is obviously reasonable, that where, a man owes a debt to the Crown, that debt should be recovered in part from moneys owed by the Crown to him.

Small Growers (Compensation Crops)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now issue instructions to war agricultural committees so that they shall cease to order small growers to grow compensation crops, namely, main crop potatoes, carrots, etc.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Horticultural Cropping Order

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will now consider withdrawing the Horticultural Cropping Order restricting the use of glasshouses and land for the growing of flowers.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, as I told him before, that these mysterious silences and negatives are not really satisfactory to the House, and cannot we expect a little better explanation?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Hospitals (Service Patients' Rations)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that rations on the civilian scale are issued instead of Service rations to wounded patients in E. M. S. hospitals; and, as the more ample rations to which as serving personnel they are entitled would conduce to the restoration of their strength, what action he is proposing to take in this matter.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The position is not quite as stated in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Where the number of Service patients is a substantial proportion of the total patients in a hospital, meat on the home service scale may be made available in respect of all the Service patients. In other respects the rations are on the civilian scale and I have been advised that these, with the other foods available, should enable hospitals to supply their patients, both Service and civilian, with a well-balanced diet, suited to their needs.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in one parti-

cular E.M.S. hospital, namely, Park Prewitt Hospital, Hampshire, where there are, or were, some 1,200 wounded Service patients, these conditions most certainly do not apply? The meat is issued on the civilian scale. Is he further aware that the medical officer in charge and the committee of that hospital drew the attention of his Department to the fact that they wished Service rations to be issued to these wounded Service patients, and that they consider their health and nourishment would be greatly benefited by the Service ration?

Mr. Willink: My hon. and gallant Friend is putting a question as to a particular hospital, and I will, of course, look into the position at that particular hospital, but it is surprising to me to hear that the meat position is as he has described.

Water Supplies and Sanitation, Rural Areas

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recently issued Report by the National Federation of Women's Institutes on Water and Sewerage Survey in Villages; and what steps are being taken to remedy the dangerous conditions that the Report exposes.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I have received a copy of the summary of information to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. It is the fact that water supplies and sanitation in a number of rural areas are in need of improvement. It is with the object of securing such improvements after the war is won, and in particular the further extension of the amenity of piped water, that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill was introduced, and passed, as part of the general scheme of post-war reconstruction.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does the Minister agree that if the conditions exposed by this report existed in London or other towns, or in many villages, there would be very serious trouble indeed? Can he not hold out a better hope that immediate steps will be taken to put this matter right than he has indicated?

Mr. Willink: It is difficult to hold out hopes of immediate steps in the course of the war. As I am sure my hon. and


gallant Friend will recollect, the first Bill I had the honour of introducing was the Bill to which I have referred.

Mr. Levy: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman playing with words when he says that the quality of the water requires improvement whereas this water is dangerous? Ought not more active steps to be taken to prevent this danger?

APPROVED SOCIETIES (CREDIT BALANCE)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the amount of money standing to the credit of the Approved Societies in this country under the National Health Acts on 30th June, 1944.

Mr. Willink: While final figures cannot be given, it is estimated that the balance in the Approved Societies' Current Account at 30th June, 1944, was £13,300,000 and the cost price of investments at that date £104,400,000.

Mr. Tom Brown: Does the Minister's Department propose to use that money to administer the proposed social insurance schemes?

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the recently published White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Bomb Damage (Repairs)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Barking has been supplied with only 700 extra workers to carry out house repairs whereas at least 1,500 are required; and whether he will take steps to provide this number.

Mr. Willink: The number of workers employed on first aid repairs in Barking has been increased from 356 on July 5th to 1,006 on 27th September. I appreciate that Barking, in common with most other districts in the London region, requires additional labour and this is being secured as rapidly as possible and will be allocated according to needs.

Mr. Colman: asked the Minister of Health the average number of bomb-

damaged houses in the Greater London area which have been repaired in such a way as to be made habitable for each of the weeks commencing 28th August.

Mr. Willink: During September an average of 22,500 houses per week received preliminary first-aid repairs to roofs and windows, to make them wind and watertight. Further work, where labour was available, was done to an average of 35,000 houses per week, to make less uncomfortable.

Mr. Astor: How soon does my right hon. and learned Friend think that these houses which have been first-aided will get secondary repairs, to make them adequate to stand up against the rigours of winter?

Mr. Willink: There is a programme which goes in stages, the first of which is to make a house wind and weather proof. As my answer indicates, a large number of houses have got beyond that stage, and are not only made wind and weather proof, but are made less uncomfortable.

Service Families (Billeting

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that billeting officers can requisition accommodation or billets for evacuees, refugees or munition workers, but cannot thus help the families of serving soldiers, sailors or airmen, even when the breadwinner has been killed or when they have lost their homes from some cause beyond their control; and whether he will consider increasing the powers of billeting officers to enable them to cope with the plight of such Service families.

Mr. Willink: In addition to the categories mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, local authorities are empowered to requisition suitable premises for the accommodation of persons inadequately housed, and the families of Service men are eligible for assistance under this head. I do not consider that billeting would be an appropriate measure in the type of case my hon. and gallant Friend has in in mind.

Accommodation, Harrow

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the number of families without homes due to flying


bomb damage in the Harrow district area; the number on the waiting list for homes for Service men, some already discharged from the Service, in that district; the number of houses of four rooms or less in that district that are now being used for Italians; and what steps he is taking to secure priority in housing for bombed out persons and ex-Service men.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. With regard to the houses occupied by Italian prisoners of war, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Works. As regards the last part of the Question, housing authorities in the London area are at present primarily concerned with securing accommodation for people made homeless by bombing, but, subject to this, the authorities are always sympathetic to the special claims of ex-Service men.

Sir R. Blair: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in some of these smaller houses, of four bedrooms and under, in that area, at present occupied by the Italian Fascists, British troops were billeted two months ago, some of whom, no doubt, have laid down their lives for this country?

Mr. Willink: I am aware of the conflict of interests in this matter, but I am seeing that no houses are occupied by Italian prisoners of war except for the purpose of creating more homes in London.

Permanent Houses

Sir C. Edwards: asked the Minister of Health how many requests he has received from local authorities for permission to build permanent houses in preference to accepting the temporary ones; what was his reply; and will he state the terms on which permanent houses can be built and the amount of subsidy per house which is to be paid.

Mr. Willink: So far as I am aware, none of the selected local authorities who were asked whether they wished to apply for an allocation of temporary houses has asked as an alternative to increase its short-term programme of permanent houses. But I could not increase the allocation of building labour, which will be the limiting factor in the programme of permanent houses, to a particular authority on the grounds that it did not wish to apply for temporary dwellings. I

am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the amount of post-war subsidies for permanent houses.

WOUNDED MEN, HOSPITAL (LEAVE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a number of wounded men who are now walking cases have been detained at a hospital, the name of which has been sent to him, and are unable to go home on leave because of the delay in the receipt from his Department of the necessary papers; and will he arrange for these to be sent forthwith.

Mr. Willink: I have had inquiries made, and cannot find that any wounded men have had their leave delayed for the reason stated in the Question.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a strong feeling among some men in the hospital in question that they could be sent home?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is asking about feeling. The Question was whether the men had been delayed by a certain cause.

Mr. Lipson: These men have definitely said that they could be sent home but for the reason given in the Question.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the formation of charitable organisations for the assistance of ex-Service men is strong evidence that the present scale of pensions to ex-Service men is inadequate; and if he will therefore review this scale.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The primary reason for these charitable organisations is to meet exceptional cases or circumstances which are outside the province of State liability and which could not be brought within the framework of any pensions scheme. I cannot, therefore, regard their existence as affording any ground for a review of the scale of war pensions.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that the whole of the needs of those who have suffered in any way as a result of service in this war should be a State liability, and not the liability of private charities?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware of that, and I provide for that. But there are exceptional cases which cannot be provided for under any Act of Parliament, and I can make provision only according to Acts of Parliament.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Pensions whether ex-members of the Forces who return disabled to their homes in Eire will be entitled to the same pensions and other benefits from his Department as those resident in Great Britain.

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir, The Royal Warrants and other instruments which I administer apply in full to disabled ex-Service personnel in Eire. They will receive pensions at the same rates as residents in Great Britain, and will be equally eligible for the best medical treatment that can be provided for their Service disabilities.

Sir P. Hannon: Are men in His Majesty's Forces who are recruited from Eire, treated in every respect similarly to English, Scottish and Welsh members of the Forces?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that there will be pensions committees and hospitals in Eire, for the treatment of those badly wounded ex-Service men?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. I have a hospital there now and war pensions committees operating throughout the whole of Eire, and every condition which applies to the United Kingdom applies to Eire.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I would like to ask how it is that a Question that I put down to the Home Secretary for to-day has been surreptitiously relegated to the Attorney-General, with the result that it becomes an "also ran"?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose the hon. Member put the Question down to the wrong Minister.

Mr. Gallacher: But is it in keeping with the recognised procedure and courtesies of this House, when a Member puts down a Question to a Minister, whom he desires to answer it, to pass the Question over to

a stooge, without any notice to the hon. Member concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I should regret if any lack of courtesy was shown to the hon. Member—it must have been, I am sure, quite unintentional.

Mr. Gallacher: Can I not insist next week on having an answer from the Home Secretary on a matter for which he is responsible?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will tell us the Business for next week, and the hour at which we shall sit on Monday, if it is decided to sit on that day?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for next week will be:
Tuesday, 10th October—Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats), Bill, and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Wednesday, 11th October—Committee and remaining stages of the India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Bill [Lords]. Further progress will be made with the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Bill and the Motion to approve the Coal (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order.
Thursday and Friday, 12th and 13th October—We hope to take the concluding stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
As the House is aware, we shall take the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill to-morrow. We made better progress yesterday, and I do not give up hope that we may yet conclude the Committee stage to-morrow. Failing this, it will be necessary to sit on Monday, as I warned the House yesterday. There is only one other small point that I want to refer to. I said yesterday, incorrectly, that if we met on Monday it would be at half past two. The intention is that if we meet on Monday, we shall meet at 2 p.m., and that there should


be no Questions apart from any Private Notice Questions which you, Sir, may decide to allow.

Mr. Lewis: Is it the intention of the Government to ask us to sit late on Friday, or not?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I should hope it will not be necessary to do that.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that before any final decisions were reached by the Government on the Bretton Woods proposals we should have an opportunity to discuss the matter in this House? In view of the fact that in a speech yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was committed to principles underlying the proposals, could he arrange for us to have a Debate on this matter at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Eden: The undertaking the Government gave still stands, and an opportunity for debate will certainly be given.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I did not understand the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), who asked about to-morrow's Sitting and whether it would conclude at the usual hour. Is there any intention of extending the hour?

Mr. Eden: No. To-morrow, we shall rise at the usual hour.

Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and in view of the Chancellor's speech yesterday, in which there is a complete contradiction of the promise made to this House of a Debate on that report, may I ask whether we shall have an early opportunity of facing the Chancellor in this House and discussing it?

Mr. Eden: I think I have already dealt with that. I do not admit that what the Chancellor said yesterday was necessarily a contradiction of what he said in this House. Even Ministers have a certain freedom of expression in these matters. Certainly, there will be an opportunity for a Debate.

Mr. Loftus: In view of the influence, for good or evil, of this conference, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving

two days to the Debate on this subject, which is of immense importance to everybody in the country?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I quite understand the importance which the House rightly attaches to this matter, and I have an open mind at present on the question of whether we shall need two days. Possibly we may.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear that neither the Government nor the House was committed?

Mr. Shinwell: Putting aside the obvious fact that the Government are not committed, even if the Chancellor is himself committed to certain principles in the Agreement, is it not desirable that we should, in all the circumstances, delay this Debate on the Bretton Woods Agreement until after the Presidential election?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. Our position is that the House will have full opportunity for discussion, and I should hope the discussion will take place in the fairly near future.

Dr. Russell Thomas: In view of the partial promise of the Leader of the House regarding a Debate on post-war export trade before the end of the Session, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a more definite announcement in the matter?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I made any partial promise that there would be a Debate before the end of the Session. There are a large number of topics which might usefully fall to be discussed on the King's Speech.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May I ask the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given for a Debate on the Government's plans for the utilisation of capacity and labour released from war production?

The Prime Minister: On further consideration, Has Majesty's Government have decided that the Minister of Production should not make a statement next week, but time will be arranged for a full Debate on the whole subject before long.

Mr. Shinwell: On future Business, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has noted that, in another place yesterday, a Debate took place on the subject


of shipping and shipbuilding; and would he afford facilities for hon. Members in this Assembly to express their views on this essential topic?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I gave an assurance that there would be an occasion before the end of the Session and that promise stands.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask how far have the Government's arrangements gone with regard to demobilisation plans, and if the right hon. Gentleman anticipates that it will be possible to have a Debate on that subject in this Session?

Mr. Eden: The House will understand that that is rather another issue. I should not like to commit myself on when the Debate will take place.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he anticipates that there will be a Debate in this House in the present Session on the White Paper on the use of land?

Mr. Eden: That is one of the subjects that should be debated; also, I should have thought, one of the subjects which might be discussed on the King's Speech.

Mr. Montague: May I ask if it will be possible to have some full account of the Government's policy on civil aviation before the Washington Conference?

Mr. Eden: That matter was dealt with by the Secretary of State yesterday. I do not think I can say more.

WARSAW EPIC (TRIBUTE TO POLISH NATION)

The Prime Minister: I have a statement to make. I am sure that I am expressing the feelings of the House, as well as those of His Majesty's Government, in paying tribute to the heroic stand of the Polish Home Army and of the Polish civilian population at Warsaw. Their resistance to overwhelming odds, under inconceivable conditions of hardship, came to an end on 3rd October, after a fight which had lasted 63 days. Despite all the efforts of the Soviet Army, the strong German positions on the Vistula could not be taken, and relief could not come in time. British, American, Polish and Soviet airmen did what they could to succour the Poles at Warsaw, but although this sus-

tained the Polish resistance beyond what would have seemed possible, it could not turn the tide. In the battle for Warsaw, terrible damage has been inflicted upon that noble city, and its heroic population has undergone sufferings and privations unsurpassed even among the miseries of this war.
The final fall of Warsaw, at a time when Allied Armies are everywhere victorious, and when the final defeat of Germany is in sight, must come as a very bitter blow to all Poles. At such a moment, I wish to express our respect to all those Poles who fell, fought or suffered at Warsaw and our sympathy with the Polish nation in this further grievous loss. Our confidence that the days of their tribulation are rapidly drawing to an end is unshakable. When the final Allied victory is achieved, the epic of Warsaw will not be forgotten. It will remain a deathless memory for the Poles, and for the friends of freedom all over the world.

BILLS REPORTED

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 4th October.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — >CLAUSE 13.—(Validity and date of operation of Orders, etc.)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, to leave out "twenty-one days," and insert "six weeks."
We consider that this period of 21 days is really quite inadequate—

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would be convenient to consider at same time the Amendment standing in my name—in page 19, line 6, leave out "twenty-one days," and insert "three months"?

The Chairman: That would be convenient.

12.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: As I was saying, the reason for moving this Amendment is that we do not consider that 21 days gives adequate time in which to appeal against the validity of an order. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, the period was six weeks, and I would most respectfully put forward the idea that that is the very minimum period which should be allowed. There is no need to mention the large numbers of people who will be affected by these orders. Many of them may not be in a position to object to the validity of an order before the expiry of the permitted time; perhaps their attention will not even have been drawn to the particular order; and I cannot see why my right hon. Friend should not be prepared to accept this reasonable Amendment to extend the time from 21 days to six weeks.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not want to go over the ground which has already

been covered by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not think that six weeks is quite long enough. Three months ought to be the period during which an appeal can be made against an order of the Minister. Certain of my hon. Friends opposite seem to think that some of us are endeavouring to delay action on the part of the local authorities, but that is not the case, and I do want to make my own position clear. When certain Amendments are discussed we are told by many hon. Members that it is imperative for the local authorities to get on with the job of rehousing, but when other Amendments are put down the same hon. Members tell us that the local authorities must not have two years, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, but have three, four or five years in which to prepare their plans. With so many conflicting opinions expressed around me I do not really know where I am; it is difficult to ascertain the trend of thought in the Committee—it appears so conflicting. I do not think that three months would be an excessive period. This is a point which I am putting forward with deep sincerity because many people whose interests may be seriously affected (by the Bill are away fighting in different corners of our far-flung Empire. I know of someone serving in India, and it would be impossible for his legal advisers to prepare a case in the period allowed. Six weeks is not quite long enough, and I suggest that the three months would he more appropriate. Another point I would make is that not many people are likely to appeal to the Court against the orders. In any particular town where the local authority put forward a scheme probably very few people would actually appeal. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look favourably upon my Amendment, and in all fairness to those who may be away and unable to look after their affairs, to extend the time as much as possible.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I have looked at this Amendment with great care. I know that the hon. and gallant Member who moved it does not want to cause undue delay and I think the Committee will agree that there should not be undue delay. On the other hand, it is absolutely essential to protect those whose lands or buildings are to be taken over. I would ask the Minister to consider introducing the period of 28 days,


which I think would allow a reasonable time to an owner of property while not unduly delaying matters. I do not know. Major Milner, whether you will call an Amendment on a subsequent Clause to put in a proviso. If that were accepted it would meet every reasonable abjection on the part at owners of land. I want to make it clear that this Committee ought not to countenance anything that would cause unreasonable delay, but must at the same time protect the interests of those whose property is being taken over.

Mr. Woodburn: May I again appeal to the Minister to watch all these little twigs, which may grow into a hedge through which he will not be able to break in his efforts to get work done under this Measure? I shall not question the intentions of hon. Members who want to put in every protection for the individual, but this is an urgent matter, and if all these barriers are raised, which in a cumulative form will render the Bill unworkable, those who are responsible for the erection of those barriers will bear a heavy responsibility if work does not go forward under the Measure. The case of soldiers has been introduced. Men will be coming back who will want homes, others who will wish to establish their lives in new towns, and anything that delays them will not be excused on the ground that some individual is being protected at the expense of the interests of the great majority of the people

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We must not overlook the fact that this Clause deals with all compulsory acquisitions of land under the earlier Clauses of the Bill. I think there is a strong case for allowing the shortest possible period in respect of applications and orders under Clauses 1, 2 and 9, but the position is quite different in the case of an application or order under any other Clauses of the Bill where the normal procedure is operated. I would support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) that in the case of applications under Clause 1 and Clause 2 the period should be short, but I do not think 21 days is quite long enough for these other Orders, and I would like to see it extended by seven days, which is not much longer but would allow an individual rather more time in

which to consider his decision and would avoid a number of applications being made to the High Court. If the period is too short owners will be apt to go to the High Court to preserve their positions within the 21 days. The extra week will help to avoid frivolous appeals. With regard to other orders, I can see no reason why the period of six weeks specified in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, should be cut down, and if the Minister cannot accept this Amendment I hope that he will, before Report stage, at least consider granting different periods for the very different classes of orders to which I have referred.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: May I point out that in many cases it would be absolutely impossible to establish contact with an owner, particularly if he is overseas? In one instance with which I am acquainted the representatives of an owner tried to get into contact with him and found that he was in India, and there must be many cases of that kind. Therefore, I agree with the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas).

Mr. Silkin: Those who are supporting this Amendment are assuming that owners will learn of a compulsory purchase order for the first time when the order is made, but, in fact, two advertisements will have been published previously and generally there will have been a public inquiry. The only matter upon which an owner has to make up his mind is whether the order goes beyond the powers conferred upon the Minister, and I should have thought that was a matter on which any owner could decide within 21 days.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The hon. Member speaks of two advertisements and a public inquiry, but supposing the owner is abroad and a very long distance from this country, how is he to know of it then?

Mr. Silkin: One presumes that an owner who is going abroad makes some arrangements and does not leave his property to be dealt with by just anyone who comes along. I should think that once this Bill becomes law any prudent owner would leave his affairs in capable hands.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I am anxious to get this point clear: as far as the Bill is concerned, is there any reason why the owner of land which is to be taken over should receive more than the 21 days in the Bill?

Mr. Silkin: I see no reason why he should not be able to make up his mind in 21 days. If we are trying to cater for an owner who may be 10,000 miles away, then even six weeks is not enough, we should give him six months.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I have asked for three months.

Mr. Silkin: I should not quarrel with my hon. and learned Friend over whether the period should be 21 or 28 days. What disturbs me is that all these little additions, taken cumulatively, will be causing a great deal of delay. Seven days is neither here nor there, and if my hon. and learned Friend will promise not to ask for any more extensions of time I should not object to giving him the seven days in full and final settlement; but I am worried about the cumulative effect of these Amendments, which will mean in the end a great deal of delay in dealing with what will be an urgent problem.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister to this question. The Committee will agree, I feel, that the interval should be a fairly short one, and the question really ranges between 21 days and three months. There is a precedent for 21 days in the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, where, no doubt, considerations of urgency also arose. I agree with my hon. Friends who say that of course we must scrutinise this matter. There is great force in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that the order is not something which will appear completely "out of the blue." In the case of a Clause 1 order, under Sub-section (5) of that Clause, there has to be publication by advertisements locally and in the "Gazette" of the intention to make the order. An undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend yesterday or the day before about having some general preliminary notice that the local authority were proposing to submit an application; When we come to the compulsory purchase orders

there, again, there is a publication of notice of the submission of the order by advertisements in the local Press and in the "Gazette." That is before all the various steps which have to be taken before the order is finally made, and these may involve public inquiries or other inquiries and give time for objection. Clause 13 will, in any event, only operate on a Clause 12 order, and there will be, therefore, very considerable notice to those interested and whose property is affected before the order is actually made. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared to accept an extension, which was thought reasonable in certain quarters on both sides of the Committee, from 21 to 28 days, and with that undertaking I hope perhaps this question may not be pressed further.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: While I appreciate very much the compromise which has been suggested, I would point out that on the earlier Town and Country Planning Bill which provided for six weeks' notice in similar circumstances this point was very well threshed out in the Committee on that Bill. I see present many hon. Members who were Members of that Committee. Six weeks was the time suggested, and I would submit that in this case six weeks would be an adequate time. Many defects in communications are coming to the notice of people, and that will be so for some time when the war is over.

12.30 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I hope the Committee will make up its mind in this matter and pass on to other business, because the Town and Country Planning Bill is regarded as urgent, and the position is entirely different from what it was in 1932.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: In view of that urgency, I do not wish to stand out, but before I withdraw my Amendment, I do want to impress upon the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that his suggestion that we are trying, by nibbling, to destroy this Bill is entirely without foundation. All we are anxious to do is to avoid, wherever possible, hardship being inflicted which will not vitally affect good planning.

Mr. Silkin: I did not go as far as to say that.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend did not intend to say that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his consideration, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: If the Committee agree I suggest that the next Amendment and the next but one might be discussed together.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, in page 19, line 25, at end, to insert:
Provided that failure to make application to the court within the period specified in this Sub-section shall not be a bar to the maintenance of proceedings if it is found that the failure was occasioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom or other reasonable cause.
The persons concerned in this Amendment are persons serving overseas. There must be many who have great difficulty in keeping in touch with advertisements in local newspapers. I do not want to plead for a longer time for application in general cases, but I do want, if possible, to preserve the right of action, where such action is not practicable within a shorter time, to those persons who, through public*service, are out of touch with what is happening at home. I do not think that right could be safeguarded by the provision of 21 or 28 days, or by three or even six months. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider that a proviso of this kind will be a reasonable safeguard for those absent on public service, without in any way delaying or interfering with the general working of the Bill.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: May I add my plea to that of the mover of the Amendment? To my personal knowledge, it will affect two soldiers, an officer and a sergeant-major, serving in Egypt. The 21 or 28 days give a short enough time at all events, to carry out what is necessary. We now seek, in consequence of that, and in addition to the concession of 28 days, to have this proviso as well, so as to make quite certain that those who are in impossible circumstances through being too far away, shall be fairly treated and have their objections considered. As hon. Members who are interested in the Workmen's Compensation Act know, this

proviso is actually in line with the proviso in that Act. It is not a new precedent. As regards the second Amendment which has been put down, it is quite possible in this case that a mistake may cause commitments which would make a person liable for damage for breaking a contract. Even if a person wins his appeal, he is still liable.

Mr. Silkin: If this Amendment were carried it would extend the period indefinitely; an appeal could even be made within 28 years after the order had been made. I am certain that my right hon. and gallant Friend would not wish that to be done, because, by that time, the property might have been altered out of all recognition. He is not only opening the door as regards time, but also as regards people who might, by mistake or absence, not have made an appeal. Anyone can make a mistake, and the number of people who do make mistakes is very large indeed. If all people who make mistakes are allowed to get outside the terms of the 28 days, we may get a very large number of people absent from the United Kingdom making an appeal at any time. That would open the door exceedingly wide. I hope, on reflection, the right hon. and gallant Member will realise that this would open the door very much wider than was ever contemplated. Indeed, if one admits exceptions at all, I cannot see where it is possible to draw the line. I hope it will be recognised that a reasonable compromise has been made in the period of 28 days.

Mr. Lewis: I understood you to say, Major Milner, that the later Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member—in page 19, line 31, at end, insert:
but nothing in this Sub-section shall prejudice or affect the right of any person aggrieved by any order or certificate referred to in Subsection (1) of this Section to recover damages in respect of any loss or injury suffered by him consequent upon the same or any provision contained therein being deemed to be invalid on any of the grounds mentioned in that Subsection.
was to be discussed at the same time as the Amendment which has been moved. That being the case, if the right hon. and gallant Member later seeks to move the subsequent Amendment we would not be allowed a separate discussion on it. I do not know whether the right hon. and


gallant Member appreciated that fact when he moved his Amendment, and I was surprised that he said nothing about his later Amendment. It seems to me to be one that raises a point of great importance. Its purpose, in fact, is that private individuals should not be debarred from the right of action where an illegal act has been committed by a servant of the Crown. I hope the Committee will insist upon such words being inserted in the Bill, so as to make it perfectly clear that it is our wish that if the Minister commits an illegal act anyone who suffers from such act may, at any time, bring an action, and if he can say that he has suffered damage from such illegal act that he will be compensated. That is of very great importance.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite and others with whom I see eye to eye on many aspects of this Bill. I am in disagreement with them for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). There must be a limit, I think, to the restrictions in this respect. This Amendment would prejudice the general working of this Bill because it might make some contumacious persons hold up the whole procedure.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend does not advise the Committee to accept either of these Amendments. I think it possible that my right hon. and gallant Friend may not have realised that if one person comes forward at a later date and succeeds it invalidates the whole order, because it is almost certain that the point he would take would be some slip in procedure which would affect the whole order. It would produce chaos if, at any time after the time limit, somebody might turn up and take such a point. Even if it were only a liability for damages, that liability would be for the whole area, and I think the local authority would say that they could not go forward with it. As an hon. Member who spoke earlier said, these oases are not very likely to arise. Many eyes will be riveted both on the local authority and on the Minister to see that the appropriate steps in the procedure are carried out. We feel it is essential that after the limit of time which has been agreed has elapsed, it should be clear that the scheme can go forward with-

out fear of some legal slip—and it would only be a slip—being brought forward to invalidate the whole procedure. With regard to the men serving overseas, everybody is anxious that everything proper should be done in regard to them. It is only right to point out two things, one, that in the interest of the majority of those overseas the steps which this Bill contemplates should be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, and, secondly, I think it is also the case that, the war having gone on for so long, the arrangements under which those who go overseas leave powers of attorney, of nominate people here to look after their interests is very much better than in earlier days.

Earl Winterton: There are welfare officers.

The Attorney-General: Yes, there are the welfare officers, and I think almost everybody these days leaves a power of attorney, or nominates someone to look after his interests.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I am a little concerned about the second Amendment on the Order Paper. I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether a man will be prevented from obtaining damages.

The Attorney-General: He can only challenge the validity of the order within the time limit which the Committee has agreed.
Amendment negatived.

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, to leave out "on," and to insert "at the expiration of six weeks from."

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. Courthope: I beg to move, in page 19, line 31, at end, to insert:
but nothing in this Sub-section shall prejudice or affect the right of any person aggrieved by any order or certificate referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section to recover damages in respect of any loss or injury suffered by him consequent upon the same or any provision contained therein being deemed to be invalid on any of the grounds mentioned in that Sub-section.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had some discussion on this Amendment, but we have had no answer to the points it raises.

Amendment negatived.

12.45 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lionel Berry: May I ask the learned Attorney-General if we can have a reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) about people who are affected by the previous Amendment? A reply may have been given by him, but if so it was not clear to some of us.

The Attorney-General: I thought I had dealt with the point, but I appreciate that I dealt with it shortly. I thought that the Committee agreed that we must accept the principle that, after a limited time, the authority should be free to go forward without the fear of the validity of the order being challenged in the sense that the property would cease to be the property of the local authority but without actions for damages over the whole field. That was the principle which I thought the Committee accepted. If the Amendment had been carried, this principle of property would remain. It often happens that you cannot put back the clock and legal rights can be enforced only by damages. The effect of the Amendment would be that damages could be claimed at any time in respect of all things done under the order. That goes to the root of the problem which we are discussing, and I thought the Committee came to the view which I had suggested.
Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 14.—(Incorporation of Lands Clauses Acts, etc., with modifications, including modifications providing for expedited completion of purchases.)

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 19, line 38, to leave out "to any necessary adaptations and."
Though this Amendment and the next Amendment standing in my name—in page 19, line 42, to leave out" subject to any necessary adaptations and"—are small they are not unimportant. Clause 14 incorporates this Bill with the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and indicates in respect to the former that the modifications are to be found in Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Bill, and those in respect of the latter in Part II of the

Fifth Schedule of the Bill. The fact that these Acts are incorporated "subject to any necessary adaptations" gives one the feeling that the Clause has been so drafted that the Schedules do not contain all the necessary modifications and adaptations, and if the Bill goes through in this form it will put upon the courts the responsibility to construe this Section of the Act in such a way as would appear to them to be necessary. I suggest that if adaptations are necessary, they should appear in the Schedule and if they are not necessary we ought not to have the additional words.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance of explaining these words because I hope that, after the Committee has heard the explanation, they will accept them. The Lands Clauses Act of 1845 and the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919 are general codes. They are the codes which are at the back of this Bill, and, as my hon. Friend has said, all alterations of substance are put in the Schedule. But when you apply a code to new and special circumstances, there are a certain number of verbal notices which are obvious when you look at them, and which would really complicate the Schedule if you sought to put them all into it. I will give one example. Under one of the procedures in this Bill the ordinary individual notice to treat is superseded by a block notice which is assumed to have the same legal effect as an individual notice. If we made all the verbal amendments that were necessary as a result of that it would unnecessarily cumber the Section. These words—and I am sure the Committee will attach importance to this—are always used when you apply special codes to a new subject matter. What they cover is entirely a matter for the court. There is no possibility of bureaucratic action, but if the court is satisfied that a verbal adaptation is necessary, having regard to the new subject matter and the provisions of the new code, then they treat it as important, and the only object of the Act is to avoid cumbering the Schedule with a number of purely verbal alterations which, when you look at the Schedule, are obvious. I hope that the Committee will accept that explanation.

Mr. Hammersley: The learned Attorney-General has, in a way, rather made my case. He has indicated that the major


modifications appear in the Schedule and that minor modifications are what the courts will have to interpret. It may be the usual procedure and that in this case we shall have to accept it. I have made the point and, having regard to the explanation that has been given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 19, line 45, to leave out Subsection (3), and insert:
(3) A purchasing authority authorised by an order made under this Act to purchase land compulsorily may at any time after serving notice to treat and after giving to the owner and to the occupier of the land not less than twenty-eight days' notice enter on and take possession of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice without previous consent or compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, but subject to the payment as provided in this Act of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded. Provided that in the case of an occupier with whom the purchasing authority have not agreed the amount of the compensation to be paid to him the period of notice to be given to him pursuant to this Section shall be not less than ninety days.
This is rather an important Amendment and I will briefly describe its effect. Subsection (3) provides for entry on the land and the vesting of the land in the planning authority before the time needed for serving the notice to treat, and it also applies the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Bill. The Sixth Schedule has, as the learned Attorney-General has just said, wiped out service of individual notices to treat. These provisions are really harsh and arbitrary and can only be justified on the grounds of strict assessment. I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that, as I understand it, this will apply not only to areas of extensive war damage, but it is part of the permanent legislation dealing with obsolete areas and overspill areas, and to land adjoining obsolete areas and war damaged areas whereon the houses may be in a very good condition indeed. The owners and the occupiers will suffer a great 6W of disturbance.
The Amendment I have put on the Order Paper is to give effect to the Minister's own desire and intention, and that

is, that within 28 days the planning authority will be entitled to enter in the case of the owner of the house. Where it is necessary to eject the occupier I increase the period to 90 days. The words of the Amendment are not a haphazard choice. These words, I am authoritatively informed, have been inserted in many other cases, and only last week this wording was inserted by the Minister of Health in the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health accepted the same wording after a similar discussion had taken place. I hope that the Committee and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give this Amendment very careful attention.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not accept this Amendment. The real core of it is to be found in the proviso at the end, which suggests that in every case where the amount of compensation to be paid has not been agreed between the occupier and the planning authority, there shall have to be a notice of not less than 90 days. The essence of the procedure we are seeking to establish under the Bill is, that it should have some expedition about it, and one fails to see the object of affording an authority in certain cases power to enter without the assessment of compensation, if in every, case where the compensation has not been agreed there is to be a three months' delay. There is speed and urgency with regard to these matters. There is difficulty in many of the steps that have to be taken and one desires in every case to protect the proper rights of compensation of the person whose property has been taken, but without derogating from that in any way, we should see to it that the local planning authority has, in a proper case, to proceed with the operation of the plan. It is a principle which has been very widely accepted in the course of organising the economy of this country for the war effort and the cases in which is has operated unjustly, one is glad to say, are very few. The Amendment would only cause serious delay to the operation of the planning authority and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will reject it.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith {Lieut.-Colonel Dower), who


moved the Amendment in such moderate language, will not persevere with it, because it would indeed effect a grave loss in the accepted procedure which is one of the main objects of this Bill to provide for this exceptional purpose of reconstructing town areas. Its effect would be to remove from the Bill the expedited procedural machinery which is contained in the Sixth Schedule. I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that by the wording of the Sub-section the Minister is satisfied that that sort of procedure is the proper one to apply in the circumstances.
1.0 p.m.
At the same time, I could not agree that we should at this stage delete the expedited completion of the Sixth Schedule. The Schedule itself, when we come to it, contains certain provisions of a safeguarding character for its operation, and I think it is a premature action to say the least of it. The requirement which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, of serving individual notices to treat instead of, in the proper course as the Sixth Schedule proposes, to treat them in blocks, would involve perhaps very great delay, because in these very areas it would be very difficult, in many cases, for the purchasing authority to seek out and ascertain who were all the owners on whom they would be bound to serve notice or risk the validity of their whole operation. I do hope my hon. and gallant Friend will reconsider this. I know he is anxious to protect the rights of individuals, but I am sure he is also anxious that we should get on with this great work on which the revival of our cities and towns depends.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I cannot see why my right hon. Friend should take such an unfavourable view on this point because it arose in an equally, if not more, urgent case of temporary accommodation, and the Minister of Health was prepared to accept it, so I cannot see why there is so much difficulty.

Mr. Morrison: I was not present when the incident took place to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I am advised that the cases are not at all the same. Different considerations applied in the other case, and provisions similar to those which he is urging upon us now were not, in fact, put into the Bill. I

ask my hon. and gallant Friend to re-examine his own mind in view of the advice which has been tendered to me.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of order, Major Milner, is it your intention to call the next Amendment, in my name and that of other hon. Members, to leave out Sub-section (3)?

The Chairman: No, the hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 19, line 46, to leave out from "under," to "this," in line 1, page 20.
The effect of this Amendment is to make it possible to apply the expedited completion procedure to purchase orders under Clause 10, as well as under Clauses 2 to 4, and Section 9. The powers under Clause 10 are undoubtedly wider, but it has been felt by my right hon. Friend that there may be cases of purchase under that Clause where he ought to have the power to apply the expedited procedure.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 20, line 5, after "land," to insert "or any part thereof."
It will normally be the case that a compulsory purchase order will be applied to a number of separate properties under separate ownership. The local authority, however, may desire to take advantage of the expedited procedure in respect of some of these properties but not in respect of others. Under the Clause as it stands, if a local authority wants expedited procedure in respect of the number of properties, it has to ask for it in respect of all of them. The purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate getting the procedure in respect merely of all those that are wanted urgently and not of the others, and therefore to cause as little inconvenience to the general public as possible. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with the purpose of this Amendment. I believe that there is some provision for it in the Schedule, but the Schedule does not seem to fit in with the Clause, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has moved his Amendment to fulfil a purpose which I


am glad to see, namely, that local authorities should not use procedure which is harsher than the case demands. The hon. Member at one stage rather protested about the multiplicity of procedures, and now he is asking for a little more elasticity. I am advised that the words which he proposes to use do not fit in, but there is nothing wrong with his principle, which is a good one. I am prepared to examine the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill to see if I cannot find words to give effect to it.

Mr. Silkin: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Disposal or appropriation by local planning authority of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir RICHARD WELLS.

In page 20, line 43, leave out "and (5)," and insert "(5) and (6)."

The Chairman: Sir Richard Wells.

Sir Richard Wells: I do not want to take up the Minister's time, and, if he is willing to accept this Amendment, I do not think I need say very much about it.

The Chairman: May I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to move his Amendment?

Sir R. Wells: No, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 20, line 43, to leave out "and."
This Amendment should be read with the first and third Amendments in my name and that of other hon. Members on the next page, namely, in page 20, line 43, after "5)," insert "and (11)"; and in page 21, line 6, to end insert:
(11) The consent of the Minister to a disposal or appropriation by a local planning authority under this section of land upon which listed buildings are situated shall not be given unless either
(a) the conditions or limitations of the appropriation or disposal will, in the opinion of the Minister, secure the preservation of such buildings; or

(b) after causing to be published in such manner as appears to him to be requisite a notice specifying any listed buildings not intended to be so preserved and after considering any representations which may be made to him with respect thereto within six weeks of such publication the Minister is satisfied that the retention of such buildings is impossible if the area is to be satisfactorily replanned.
These three Amendments seek to restrain a local authority from demolishing beautiful or historic buildings unless satisfactory replanning of the area cannot be achieved without demolition. Parliament has already on many occasions shown concern for beautiful and historic buildings. There are Acts of Parliament, the earliest of which was passed in 1882, dealing with what are somewhat quaintly called ancient monuments. There is also Section 38 of the Housing Act of 1930, re-enacted as Section 142 of the Housing Act of 1936, which requires local authorities, in taking any action under that Act, to have regard to the beauty of the landscape or countryside, the other amenities of the locality, and the desirability of preserving existing work of architectural, historic or artistic interest. It goes on to say that the local authority must comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given by the Minister.

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the hon. Member quoting from his Amendment?

Mr. Keeling: No, I am quoting from Section 142 of the Housing Act of 1936. That is a very valuable precedent for us, and I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when Minister of Health made use of the last part of the Section I have quoted and forbade a local authority to destroy a certain historic building which it had proposed to destroy in connection with a housing scheme. However, in spite of the interest which the House has shown in the preservation of beautiful buildings, there is no existing legislation which makes any provision for ascertaining what particular buildings should be regarded as worthy of preservation, and I am afraid that as matters now stand the practice too often is to demolish the building first and then to have a discussion as to whether it should have been preserved. One of the good things achieved in this war is that lists have been drawn up of buildings of historic and architectural


importance. I think it is the very first time that this has been done on a comprehensive scale, and my Amendment refers to these lists.
If hon. Members will look at the foot of page 1366 of the Order Paper, they will see that in the Amendment to Clause 49 we define what we mean by listed buildings. These lists were in the County of London prepared by the L.C.C., and elsewhere by panels of architects sponsored by the Ministry of Works. Together the lists form a catalogue of buildings which merit preservation. The primary purpose of drawing up those lists three or four years ago was that if the buildings recorded in them should be hit by enemy bombs, they would be safeguarded from the risk of demolition by uninstructed Civil Defence Squads. Now that, as we hope, the danger of enemy damage is passing, surely it is appropriate to try and preserve these buildings from the hazards of peace. These lists are admittedly imperfect; they can be improved, and indeed they are constantly being revised. Moreover, my Amendment provides that fresh lists can be substituted for the existing lists after consultation between the Minister and the local planning authority. Attempts at preservation in the past have been shipwrecked on the rock of compensation, but this particular obstacle is absent here because local authorities, who are trustees of the public, cannot reasonably expect compensation for not destroying something which has been authoritatively pronounced worthy in the public interest of being preserved. I do not see how that can be contested. Most local authorities may, indeed, be expected to show legitimate pride in the listed buildings in their possession, and to compare with satisfaction their own plenty with their neighbour's poverty or vice versa. This Amendment merely seeks to make statutory a practice which is already followed in effect, though not in form, by enlightened authorities. This country has suffered a grievous loss of assets both at home and abroad, and this is not a time to allow any assets which still remain to us to be carelessly lost. It is the buildings referred to in this Amendment which enshrine much of our history; it is these buildings which give many of our towns their particular character and charm; and it is these buildings which people from overseas come to see. To

seek their preservation may prove to be not only good planning but also good business.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like strongly to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in such a convincing manner. This Amendment, while ensuring that the utmost care would be taken to preserve ancient and historic monuments, and buildings of beauty and enduring worth, will not interfere in any way with the main objects of this Bill. I think it is important that we should not just trust to the good sense of the local authority in every case without having some safeguard of this kind. In most cases, especially with the major authorities, great care would be taken not to destroy buildings of this character, but here and there there have been cases in recent years where the authority has entirely disregarded the opinion not only of experts but of many who love the records of the past. Buildings of beauty and great historical interest have been swept away, and nothing could be done afterwards to replace the loss.
I wish we could have had here our esteemed colleague the late Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah). I remember earnestly listening to a passionate appeal he once made in connection with an ancient historic building in a great city in Scotland, which was destroyed owing to a lack of interest by the local authority. If that sort of thing could happen in a great city it is much more likely to happen in the areas of smaller authorities, unless there is a safeguard. There is, further, in particular, the danger of neglecting the preservation of beautiful Georgian buildings. In the 18th century Gothic and medieval buildings were swept away as barbarous survivals of antiquity. Those buildings, to-day, we should count of priceless worth. Again, in the 19th century, with equal disdain for the past, beautiful Georgian buildings and 17th century buildings were swept away which, to-day, we should be only too glad to see in existence. I therefore hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Wilmot: As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) would expect, I support this


proposal most whole-heartedly and I sincerely hope that effective means will be found to prevent the further destruction of monuments of the beauty of the past. But I am a little worried about the proposal to have a sort of public inquiry. Any procedure to be inserted into this Bill which leads to unnecessary delay is to be deplored.

Mr. Keeling: There is no provision for a public inquiry in the Amendment.

Mr. Wilmot: Well, it is something like a public inquiry; it is listening to representations made within a fairly long period and so on, and might lead to a sort of inquiry. I should have thought that the same object might have been achieved if the Minister were given complete discretion in the exercise of the powers which this Amendment, very properly and very necessarily, confers upon him. In considering it, I hope the Minister will think of that point. Necessary and important as it is—and I agree with all that was said by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey)—to arrest the widespread destruction of these monuments it is no less necessary to get on with providing houses for the living. It would be difficult to defend procedure, and we should lose public sympathy for our growing consciousness of beauty and antiquity, if we did anything which held up provision of the necessary houses. I think the hon. Member's purpose would be served if the Minister were required to put on notice that a building of artistic merit or historical value was imperilled and he was given full discretion to come to a decision in the light of advice which he could seek of his own volition.
I hope the impression has not been created by this discussion that public and local authorities have been the principal offenders in the destruction of ancient monuments. Unfortunately, the private developer has been a far greater criminal in this matter than the public developer and I would like the hon. Member for Twickenham to turn his inventive genius, in his enthusiasm for this cause, in the direction of devising some means by which we can prevent the profiteer and the jerrybuilder from spreading the spoliation for which he has been responsible in the past.

Mr. John Dugdale: I would like to support strongly the closing words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) in that local authorities are not primarily responsible for the destruction which has been caused, but I am a little disturbed by his alarm at possible delay. The Amendment combines a certain measure of idealism with a great deal of common sense and I cannot see anything in it which will bring about any undue delay. We have suffered a great deal of destruction, and we do not want to add to it further by ourselves destroying such buildings as the German air force happens to have left. I think it would be a disaster in a reconstruction Bill, such as this, if we were to be guilty of destruction and I hope we shall avail ourselves not only of the lists which councils have—I have seen the comprehensive and able list of the London County Council—but also the list of the National Buildings Record. That list was started just before the war and I believe that it contains already 500,000 photographs and drawings. I agree that good local authorities will not destroy, but legislation is not to protect us from the many good people but from the few bad people, and that is the reason for this Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), and those who have supported him, for responding to the invitation, almost a challenge, which I held out on the Second Reading. I suggested that he should use his great ingenuity to devise an improvement in this Bill which would meet a desire which is very near to the hearts of my right hon. Friend and myself, and is shared in all quarters of the Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on the all-Party support which he has secured for his Amendment, but also on the influential body of support which appeared in signatures to a letter in "The Times" from the R.I.B.A., the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Georgian Group, the National Buildings Record, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and, last but not least, the Town Planning Institute. The Government share the view of those who have spoken that some provision to


achieve the aim of the Amendment should be included in the present Measure. I am going to invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his series of Amendments in order that we can consider the wording and the most appropriate place in which to insert such provisions in this Bill. Before we reach the next stage, so far as is possible in the time, I propose to keep in touch with my hon. Friend.
There is something in the point, raised by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot), about provisions which might lead to unnecessary delay. I am not sure that the provisions for advertising are quite appropriate, and I feel even more strongly that his definition will not do. There is no list at the moment in existence which can very well receive statutory recognition, although it is right that use should be made of these lists, which are being constantly improved. I think that instead of having Amendments of this nature scattered about the Bill it might be more convenient if they were grouped in a single Clause. Having said that, I want strongly to reinforce the general view which has been expressed in all quarters of the Committee. The planning authorities that really understand the nature of the beauty of the English town will consider not only individual buildings but such important things as streets—to give an example, the high streets of Lewes, or Fareham or Burford, or many others I could mention. Having given an assurance that the most appropriate way of achieving the object will be considered between now and the Report stage, I would invite my hon. Friend and his supporters to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I wholeheartedly agree with the desirability of preserving so many of our ancient monuments, and I welcome the addition to the list made by the Parliamentary Secretary when suggesting the preservation of streets. But while extending all this support I would like, to ask him to consider that in devising legislation to secure this protection he will not fall into the pit of listing categories. There are, for instance, scattered round the country, and in great number in our smaller towns, many 16th and 17th century buildings. I do not think it follows that just because they are buildings of that period they ought necessarily to be preserved. We must have a fair

selection of them but they should be looked at from the point of view not only of the individual building but of the country as a whole. We want a variety of buildings but we do not necessarily want to keep them all.
1.30 p.m.
The second limitation that I would suggest is that this protection should, in no circumstances, be an absolute one. I do not like to revive the embers of old controversies, but there was an occasion when, not in an official capacity, the hon. Gentleman was convinced that Rennie's bridge should not be interfered with. In fact, it has been replaced by a modern bridge which, to most of us at any rate, is equally pleasing and is infinitely superior for the purpose for which Rennie erected his construction, that is, the purpose of carrying traffic across the Thames.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I must warn the Committee that we cannot discuss any individual monument.

Mr. Hughes: I was not arguing its merits or demerits, but only using it as exemplifying the dangers which would arise if, in every case antiquity, when established, was to give an absolute right to prevent interference.

Captain Cobb: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman the Albert Memorial in mind?

Mr. Hughes: The Ruling of the Chair prevents me from expressing my own opinion about that monument. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, in considering the proper terms in which this protection should be afforded, will bear these two considerations in mind.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I welcome very much the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given that he will insert words which will have the same effect as the Amendment. But there is one point that I should like to put to him. He said he could not accept the principle of advertising. Very often those who have most knowledge about ancient buildings and monuments are local antiquarian societies and bodies of that kind, and if advertising is not to take place cases may occur of which these bodies do not know, though one or two individuals may happen to be aware of the historic interest of


a certain building. I think it would be a very good thing that the hon. Gentleman should keep the idea of local publicity well in mind, and not leave the matter to some list which has been drawn up and deposited with the Minister.

Mr. Keeling: On the question of streets, I naturally do not complain of any proposal to extend the scope of the lists, but actually some of the existing lists do include streets. I have here a list drawn up by the Office of Works panel architect for Aylesbury which includes three or four squares and twenty streets. The list prepared by the London County Council also includes streets, some of them not far from the Palace of Westminster. I thank my hon. Friend for his sympathetic reception of these Amendments. I note that they will not quite do in this form. I may mention, though not by way of reproach, that in reply to what my hon. Friend called his challenge during the Debate on the Second Reading, we sent them to his Department at least a month ago in case they cared to suggest any improvement, but we had no reply. On the understanding that my hon. Friend will consult me before putting his new Amendment down for the Report stage, I ask leave to withdraw these Amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 20, line 46, to leave out "used to the best advantage" and to insert "best use."
The words "to the best advantage" might be taken to suggest that a good money return is to be the only consideration. The financial interests of the ratepayers ought, of course, to be taken into account, but they are not the sole consideration, and my Amendment seeks to exclude any interpretation that they are to be the sole consideration.

Mr. H. Strauss: This is a drafting Amendment. In the opinion of the Government it is an improvement and we accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 21, line 20, after "disposal," to insert:
other than a lease for not exceeding seven years at a rack rent.
The purpose of the Amendment, as I understand it, is that local authorities shall

be able to dispose of land on short tenancies without necessarily coming to the Minister. Under the Clause as it stands every disposition of land has to get the Minister's consent. I am sure it was not intended that the local authority should come to him before letting a house on a weekly tenancy. I do not think the actual words really meet the case but, if the hon. Gentleman will accept the principle, no doubt he will put it into better language.

The Attorney-General: I do not think this would be right. The Amendment would put it into the power of a local authority to let for seven years, which is a considerable period, for purposes which might conflict with the general plan which the Minister has in mind. It may be very right and proper that there should be certain short lettings for a purpose not inconsistent with the planning but under the Clause the Minister could in a proper case give consent in general terms for leases up to seven years. I think we had better leave it as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 21, line 35, to leave out "so far as may be practicable."
It might be convenient if this could be discussed together with a later Amendment to leave out "an" and to insert "a preferential."

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the second Amendment is not selected.

Sir J. Mellor: That puts me in rather a difficulty as I link the two together, but I move the first. The purpose of Sub-section (6) in my view is unduly limited by the inclusion of the words "so far as may be practicable." In those circumstances I think they would be best left out, but as I am unable to move the second Amendment, which I think is really necessary—

The Deputy - Chairman: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The second Amendment, as I understand it, is more or less consequential so that we could discuss them together, but it will not be selected. If he wishes he can make his point on it.

Sir J. Mellor: The purpose of the two Amendments read together is to ensure that persons who have lived or carried on business on land which the authority


has acquired shall have a preferential opportunity to obtain accommodation thereon. As the Sub-section stands, planning authorities are directed to exercise their power to dispose of the land in this way only so far as may be practicable, and it says nothing at all about a preferential right for such people. If one examines closely the terms of the Sub-section, there can really be no objection to the Amendments, because the authority will only be required so to exercise their power of disposal in favour of these persons if they are willing to comply with any requirements of the authority as to the development and use of such land; and it is further provided that they shall be permitted to obtain land on terms settled with due regard to the price at which such land has been acquired from them.
It is quite simple under these provisions for the planning authority to require such persons to enter into any restrictive covenants or covenants of other kinds that the authority considers necessary to the proper development and use of the land. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish that people whose land has been acquired shall be given the first opportunity of obtaining it, subject to ensuring that they shall make proper use of it consistent with the intentions of the planning authority.

1.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I feel a difficulty about omitting these words. In some cases there will be more people in the area—say, a blighted area, which may be blighted because it is congested—than it would be possible to accommodate in the area as redeveloped. One of the objects of the redevelopment may be to have a smaller number of people accommodated and to have an open space, and those for whom there is no room will, if they desire, be accommodated in the overspill area or arrangements must be made for them elsewhere. That is why we put in these words, and it is essential that they should be there. If the words were cut out, it would put an absolute duty on the authority to secure that persons who were previously living in the area were given a preferential opportunity of going back. It might give rise to the old problem of getting a quart into a pint pot, and we cannot put a statutory obliga-

tion on anybody to perform that difficult task. There is no difference in intention between us, but my hon. Friend may not have thought of that. It would produce an insuperable difficulty if these words were left out.

Sir J. Mellor: If we left these words out and substituted somewhere in the Subsection words implying a preferential right which did not place any absolute obligation on the authority, it would ensure that people whose property has not been acquired would not be given opportunities in front of those whose property has been acquired.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought the word "preferential" was pure surplusage, because the words "so far as may be practicable" mean that those whose property has been acquired would have a preferential opportunity.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to ask leave to with-1draw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir R. Wells: I beg to move, in page 21, line 38, after "Act," to insert:
or (b) owners of such land and interested directly or indirectly in the profits of business or other activities previously carried on there by their tenants and.
The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the words in the Bill, which refers to
persons who were living, or carrying on business or other activities, on land which the authority have acquired for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
The words I am moving would follow these words. It is well known that there are many owners of property who are directly interested in the business of their tenants, and some tenants may be agents of certain businesses. It would be a hardship if a tenant said he did not want to carry on the business, for the owner would then lose something of great value. There are many multiple shops and licensed premises, etc., and so forth that might be directly affected. If the Minister could explain what is meant by "living or carrying on business" it might settle the point. If it does not, an important point with regard to property owners and tenants will not be covered by the Bill.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that my hon. Friend will not persevere with the Amendment, although I understand the


point at the back of it. It would extend rather too widely the protection which the Sub-section gives to those residing or carrying on business in the district. It would be very difficult to say that this protection should go to people who are interested directly or indirectly in the profits of business or other activities previously carried on in the area. It may be that people who are financially interested in businesses which, are moved would thereby become entitled to some share in the compensation which is appropriate because of the action of the planning authority. That is one thing, but it is quite another thing to impose upon the planning authority, in addition to any claims for compensation that might arise, the duty of finding the land and a place for the people who are so remotely connected as to be merely financially interested in the business. In the case which my hon. Friend puts it is, of course, the tenant to whom this Clause gives the protection, that is, the person who is living in or carrying on business in the area and whose livelihood or way of life and place in the area are very desirable because he has connections there, and so on. All these things are the interests of the tenant. For more remote interests I would urge my hon. Friend to trust the good administration by the local authorities which have a wide experience of the problems which he has in mind. I think that this Sub-section properly administered will give, as far as it can be given, reasonable protection to all legitimate interests.

Sir R. Wells: May I ask the Minister whether he would consider cases of hardship and put in words to cover them on the Report stage?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot hold out any hope of that on the Report stage. It would be impossible to carry out a purpose expressed as widely as it is in my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Sir R. Wells: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider it if it were more narrowly expressed?

Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Lawson: I beg to move, in page 21, line 43, to leave out Sub-section (7).
The object of the Amendment is to remove from this Clause a power which the Minister has to direct a local authority

to dispose of land in certain circumstances. That is a bad provision for three reasons. First, it appears to me to be unnecessary because under the Clause the local authority has ample powers to dispose of land if it so wishes, and if it wants to make use of that power it has to get the permission of the Minister. That rules out any idea that a local authority will be saddled with the ownership of land which it wants to dispose of in a reasonable way. I cannot, therefore, see why this provision has been put in, for it serves no useful purpose. Second, I object, unless a strong case is made out for it, to the central Government having power to direct a local authority to do anything like this. I agree that there are circumstances in which the central Government must have power to be able to give specific orders to a local authority, but I cannot see that that would apply in this case. It takes away power from local authorities, and I think that we ought, wherever possible, to give as much power to them as is necessary.
My third reason is one with which hon. Members who put their names to the Amendment may not agree. I am one who desires to see as much public ownership of land as possible, and I can imagine the case of a local authority with a majority of Socialist members taking that view, and at the same time, a Minister who took the opposite view and wanted to see as much land as possible in private ownership. A Minister in these circumstances could compel a local authority which desired the public ownership of land to dispose of the land. Because I want to see as much public ownership of land as possible I ask for this provision to be cut out of the Bill.

Mr. George Griffiths: I desire to support the Amendment, but I do not want to associate myself with the personal aspect as definitely as the hon. Member who moved it did. He states, "I want," but I am here to speak for 600 local authorities and not for myself. I represent the Association of Urban District Councils of England and Wales. I am not sure whether this Sub-section would not suit Lord Haw-Haw when he is giving his news from Germany, for it might lead him to say, "They are imitating us now in the House of Commons, and if they are doing that to-day, what will they do to-morrow?" This Subsection is very mandatory and gives the


Minister a good deal of power. The hon. Member said that a local authority might have a Socialist majority which desires to retain the land, but there are urban and rural district councils which have Tory majorities which also desire to hold the land that they own. The Sub-section says:
If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient as mentioned in Sub-section (2) of this Section that a local planning authority should dispose of land under this Section to any person in any manner, he may direct the authority to dispose of it accordingly.
That is to say, the Minister may direct. He possesses the power to say to these urban district councils, on whose authority I am speaking this afternoon—by their instruction, if you like—" You may want that land. You may feel that you require it for the future; but I have looked at this matter. I have decided that you must part with it, and you can do so to a society or to an individual member." I think the Minister's draftsmen forgot where they were, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has only looked at it himself for the first time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: indicated dissent.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister says, under his breath, that he wishes he had. He may not have looked at it from the same standpoint as our association. They have looked at it, and they say that two heads are better than one. I ask him to look at it from the standpoint of the local authorities and to delete Sub-section (7) entirely.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I respond to the invitation of the hon. Member, and will endeavour to contribute what my head can, so that our two heads may wag more harmoniously together. I believe that will be possible when the true purport becomes known of this Sub-section that he is seeking to delete. There is a point of principle here which I would like the Committee to consider. Parliament, in its wisdom, created, some months ago, a Minister of Town and Country Planning—quite a new organ in the State—and charged him with certain duties, to see that continuity, and so on, was followed, in a policy designed to secure the best use of land in this country. Such a Minister, to carry out such a responsibility—I speak not for myself alone, but for my successors as well, of whatever party they

may be—must be armed with sufficient powers to carry out the duties which Parliament has laid upon him. One of these powers is to be able to control the disposition of land by authorities and that may turn out, in the broad case, to be a very vital matter to good planning. What is intended here is to use it as a reserve power.
Let me put frankly to the hon. Member and to the Committee in general, the sort of consideration that might arise. The hon. Member has referred to the differences which might occur as to the disposal of land between people of different parties, where a majority party may want to take a course which would be unjust to a minority. It may not only be one political party acting against another, but, as in areas of this country where, alas, even now, strong religious animosities are apt to sway communities, refusal of disposal of land may be based on religious grounds, and not on planning grounds. The Minister in charge of this matter ought to have the power in such a case to see that the minority is not sacrificed to a local majority, and that justice is done. It is for that reason that this reserve power is, I consider, essential. It is not a power that any Minister would use, if he were wise, in a harsh or oppressive way. He would desire to give the local planning authority the widest possible scope for discharging its function, but he must have in reserve this power, should the planning machinery in any part of the country break down, to put things straight.
There is another point I would like to clear out of the way in connection with a question which was introduced by both hon. Gentlemen. They spoke of the difficulty which arises from the use of the word "disposal." There is no question of this power being used to defeat the objects which they have in mind, namely the widest possible public ownership of land. If they look at Sub-section (8) they will see that "disposal" there means, not the sale of the freehold only, but disposal by way of lease, and in every way you like, except gift and mortgage. I do not think anyone would suggest that local authorities should be allowed to give land away or to mortgage it. There is no point of politics in it at all—I mean politics in the sense of "anti-" or "pro-" land nationalisation or public ownership.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I think I got in all the political parties. I did not mention only a Socialist majority but also Tory majorities in a local council. I did not intend to bring any direct party politics into it.

Mr. Morrison: I am not accusing the hon. Member of doing so. I am saying that the word "disposal" is not limited to parting with the freehold. It means parting with land in any other way, and any argument founded on the supposition that this is directed against what hon. Member's want, is quite unfounded. There is this to be said; I know that local authorities have expressed apprehension about this matter. In our discussions, I offered to incorporate as Amendments any safeguards they thought were reasonable against harsh or oppressive powers being used by a Minister. The negotiations have gone on the lines that the Minister, before giving his decision directing local authorities to dispose of land, should have to hear them in the matter, and that their case should be put before the Minister so that he would act with full knowledge of their motives and desires. That is very reasonable. There is also the question of the price or rent which might be charged. These negotiations are not yet completed, but if suitable accommodation can be arrived at, so that the power remains which is essential for the central Ministry to have in reserve, and yet safeguards against its oppressive or harsh use can be devised, we shall incorporate Amendments to that effect at a later stage.

Sir Adam Maitland: The Minister has made out a good case from the Ministerial point of view for the existence of this power but we have to admit that the local authorities are hot at all happy that we should have this power. The Minister talked about the necessity of it, for deciding in cases of disputes based either on religious or political grounds, but that seems somewhat irrelevant. I should have thought the Minister would be well advised not to seek to take any part in religious or political controversies, and to keep out of them. This question is one concerning the disposal of land in the best interests of the people of the locality. We have committed to local authorities in Act after Act great powers and great discretion, and we ought not now to take dis-

cretionary powers from them in the case of this new type of legislation. After all the time that local authorities may give in acquiring land and in complying with all kinds of regulations the Minister proposes to take power to tell them to dispose of it in the manner which he says is right. He said he was negotiating with representatives of local authorities and I hope he can give the Committee an assurance that the views of local authorities will be fairly considered and their apprehensions allayed and that he will bring up the matter at a later stage in our proceedings.

Earl Winterton: I very much hope that the Minister will not agree to the proposals put forward by my hon. Friends. A good many of us were strong supporters of the Bill. I supported the Bill on the Second Reading against some of my hon. Friends and I attach the utmost importance to the matter in question. Let me explain to the Committee why that is. The hon. Member who has just spoken has drawn a false analogy between the Bill and previous Bills, and I was rather surprised to hear his argument, coming from a member of the Tory Party. My hon. Friend suggested that because local authorities, in much smaller respects, had been given wide powers of discretion, when it is proposed to give them immense powers, greater than they have ever possessed before in the history of this country, they should be allowed to exercise that authority without there being any discretion by the Minister whatever. Many of us attach great importance to the Minister having discretion in this matter.
My own experience has been—and I think that the whole Committee will agree with me on this—that when a Minister is in office in this country it never matters whether he is Socialist, Liberal or Tory; he never allows his political prejudices to influence his administration. Let me give an example, however, of what might quite easily occur. I ventured to say during the Second Reading Debate, and I repeat it here to-day, that I have in my constituency something like 10,000 or 15,000 people of small means who own their own houses, and under this Bill their interests must be considered of equal importance with the interests of local authorities. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) very fairly and properly


has put the views of urban authorities, so I am entitled to put the views of the small owners of property who may come into conflict with them.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It is not a qustion of property but of land that local authorities own now. The Noble Lord is desirous that it should be taken from the local authorities and given to some private persons.

Earl Winterton: If the hon. Member would be a little more patient, and would hear my argument, I think I could convince him that he and I are not so far apart as he seems to think.
These two Sub-sections, taken in conjunction with each other, mean that if a local authority should withhold its consent to the sale of land, save for the erection of houses, to private enterprise—although I do not care what form it takes—the Minister has the right to give his permission for the land to be so disposed of. Let me give an example of the way in which it might occur. I have spoken of the small householders in my constituency. The interesting thing is that thousands and thousands more people every year now own their houses, and it is no longer true that house property is owned only by a few hundred individuals; it is owned by millions of people. A local authority might have a large area of land on which they wanted to build eventually, but, for some reason, they find themselves not in a position to build on a particular piece of it. There might be a local association of small property owners, possibly with some form of insurance society behind them, and these people might come forward and say to the local authority: "We are prepared to build houses on this land and are quite prepared to enter into any condition and to comply with your general plan. We are prepared to put up the type of house that you want." The local authority may reply: "This is all very fine and large, but we were elected to support the principles of the Socialist Party, who believe in the public ownership of land, and for that reason we are not prepared to sell to these people and allow them to have this land."
2.15 p.m.
In that case I say with absolute conviction that any Minister of Town and Country Planning, even if he was the leader of the Socialist Party—such would

be the fairness of administration which always prevails in this country—would say "I am not concerned with the political aspect. As Minister I am not concerned whether it is a Socialist or private enterprise proposal. All I am concerned with is whether houses are to be built. I think the local authority has made a mistake, that these private people are prepared to build houses and I am prepared to support them." So, as the Minister truly said, far from introducing a political element it avoids the chance of any political or religious element coming into the question, and carries out the true intention of the Bill, that is to see that the land is properly planned and developed.

Dr. Haden Guest: I must confess that I did not think the Minister made out a good case for the retention of this power. I think the motive that underlies it has been clearly expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The power given by this Clause is an extraordinarily arbitrary and unlimited power, and even if it is passed by the Committee I think Members on all sides will agree that the power ought to be limited and not entirely arbitrary. The Minister, in his philosophical attitude towards life, referred to political and religious differences, and he suggested that the Minister might be protecting a religious or political minority. But he might, under this Clause, be protecting a particular private enterprise. He could use his discretion in that way if he wished. The right hon. Gentleman has illustrates how that might come about. A local firm of builders might wish to put up houses.

Earl Winterton: I never said anything of the sort. I said a local association of property-owners might be prepared to build small houses where the local authority was not, and that any Minister who did his duty would say "I am not concerned with public or private enterprise, but these people are prepared to build, so I shall be prepared to support them."

Dr. Guest: A small association of property owners is not normally the kind of association concerned with such building. There is no reason why the Noble Lord should not organise one; it might be a very good thing, but I do not know of one at the moment. The people who


put up houses, speculative builders, are people who sometimes put up good houses and sometimes bad houses. Some of the houses are extraordinarily bad and the profits of putting up these houses are very great indeed. I was initiated in this some time ago. I suppose that profits in these cases are at least 33⅓ per cent, sometimes 50 per cent., when the house is off-loaded on to the private investor who wants to have a house of his own, and who has to pay through the nose for it. I do not want it to be left to the discretion or indiscretion of any Minister to have the power to let loose a rapacious builder in a locality simply because some other scheme has not been put forward.
It seems to me that in the ultimate case there may be need for the Minister to have power, but there is not the need for the arbitrary, unlimited, dictatorial power which the Minister could exercise under this Clause. I, therefore, hope that the Committee will insist on this being taken hack, and I hope it will be taken back finally and definitely, or at least considerably amended before it passes into what might become an instrument of very serious exploitation. It would be a disaster if one of the effects of a town planning Act was to have a large amount of unregulated building, going on because a Minister without imagination did not realise what very bad building the speculative builder frequently does put up.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I approach this with a definite prejudice in favour of the local authority as opposed to the central Government, but I think the least reflection must lead one to support the Minister in this particular case. I do not think that the examples given by the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member behind him are the best examples by which to understand this. I was thinking of this sort of problem: In the case of great public corporations such as the Highland electricity undertaking or bodies of that kind, great public services set up by Act of Parliament, one can quite understand the local authority, for some reason or other, declining to lease part of their ground for a service of first-class national importance such as a railway, electricity, gas or water. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, appointed by this Committee, acting for this Committee, must, surely, in a case like that,

have a reserve power to be used in an exceptional case. I should not have thought there is very much danger, because, if a local authority had a good case it would inform its local Members of Parliament, and the whole issue would be raised here, but to refuse these powers—the right, which is what it amounts to, to plan this country in a national sense—seems to me to stultify the whole purpose of this Bill. Therefore, on this particular point I am bound to agree with the Minister that these reserve powers must be kept.

Mr. John Wilmot: I am afraid the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has rather put the cat among the pigeons in this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) that for the reasons he gave and the reasons the Minister gave, this Clause is necessary, but we ought to be quite sure of its intention. Its intention is to prevent the local authority from harshly excluding from the right to carry on a church or club or something, and to give the Minister overriding powers in cases of necessity. But I am sure that the intention of the Minister in putting this Clause in the Bill was not to take the sort of action which the noble Lord mentioned; it is not intended that the Minister should force a local authority to employ a particular builder as against another particular builder. I hope that the Minister will make it quite clear that it is not for that purpose he wants this Clause in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I want to ask one question. Like others, I have had representations from local authorities. Has the Minister power to hold a public inquiry into these cases? A good many points of difference in the past have been removed by public inquiry, and where no public inquiry can be held there is, naturally, dissatisfaction. When the local authority is in contact with the Minister that local authority, having been elected by the local electors, deserves to be heard in its own defence, and in such a way that the electors of that locality can make what representations they wish. I should like to see provision made for the holding of a local inquiry where there is opposition. I suggest that might be done.

Sir Peter Bennett: A great number of hypothetical cases have been put forward, but the local


authority in which I am interested, the Corporation of Birmingham, have asked me to put forward the fact as they see it, which is that the Minister already has his say in the matter. The corporation are acquiring land, sometimes by compulsion, sometimes by other methods, and they have had to satisfy the Minister already on the propriety and justification of their proposals. Having done that with the Minister's consent and spent public money, they feel that the matter should rest at that stage, and that they should be left to judge. They have spent ratepayers money and been in touch with the Minister who has agreed that they acquire the land, and they therefore feel that after that stage they are the best authority to settle what is best in accordance with their planning and the scheme they put forward. The local authorities feel strongly that having done all they are asked to do, they should not be asked to face this extra risk of having their plans upset at a later date.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I find myself, on this occasion, in full support of the Minister. My reasons are a little different from the reasons which have been given in some quarters, and I disagree with some of the criticisms of this Clause. It seems to me that those who are enthusiastic for national planning, for public ownership and matters of that kind are being, to say the least, a little inconsistent if they desire the Minister and Parliament to part with this power to any number of local authorities, and to part with it without any chance of any say as to how that power over land is to be exercised by local authorities. If this Clause goes consider this position where there are two local authorities adjoining each other. Let us suppose that one of these authorities has a Socialist majority or, if you like, a Conservative majority. That authority has acquired land under this Bill compulsorily, more and than it is using at the moment or is likely to require for many years to come, if ever, because of changes of population and things of that sort. Let us suppose that adjoining there is another local authority which wants land and has not got the land it needs within the area of its authority. Is it not right that provision should be retained in the Bill, so that the Minister can say to the first local authority, "You must dispose of your

land to the other authority so that we can get planning on a national scale, with national control at the centre"?
Let us develop the argument for retaining the Clause in its present form. People have been a little suspicious about what the Minister may or may not do under this Clause. It seems to me we have, in this matter, to leave the power with the Minister—I am not always in favour of that but I am on this occasion—and trust him to exercise it properly, without fear or favour. I hope the Minister will not alter or water down the provisions of this Clause.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I hope that the Minister will give more consideration to this Sub-section than he has given up to now. I am inclined to agree that the Minister should have power to compel persons to use land for national purposes, but I am not satisfied that every Minister, in any circumstances, would use that power wisely. I have had a rather bitter experience, as a member of a local authority, of having to fight a Ministry for a very long time in order to retain 180 acres of land, for which our authority had paid. The Minister of Health at the time was endeavouring to compel us to sell that land privately.[An HON. MEMBER: "For what purpose?"]For no purpose at all; just to dispose of it. We had purchased the land for a specific purpose, for use as a sewage farm. Later on we induced the London County Council to take our sewage into their system, under an agreed arrangement. The result was that the land which we had previously used for sewage was no longer needed for that purpose. In the following year we were becoming the actual owners of the land. Then we had a letter, much to our surprise, informing us that, as the land was no longer needed for the purposes for which it was acquired, we should dispose of it by sale. We declined to dispose of the land, by sale or by any other way. We had a rather long and bitter dispute with the Ministry of Health as to whether they had power to compel us to dispose of the land. We did not dispose of it by sale at all. We disposed of part of it by lease, and we retained the rest of it for a sports ground—and a very fine sports ground it made—until the war, when it was taken over by the military authorities. Such a thing might occur


again, and if the Minister is taking the absolute power he is seeking here, that power may be used in a way that is not for the public good.
I do not like the Sub-section as it stands. On the other hand, I quite see that the Minister may have to intervene in a dispute between two local authorities, to compel an authority to sell land, for the public good, to another authority, or even to a public corporation. I have quite recently, as a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, had such an experience myself. We required land for reservoirs, and had the greatest difficulty in getting the land; although we got it in the end. We may require, for a similar purpose, land that is owned by a local authority. The local authority may refuse to sell, lease, or exchange it, and in such circumstances I think it would be better for the Minister to have this power. The local authority of which I am a member required land for road widening at a point where the road was definitely dangerous. The Forestry Commissioners owned the land which we required; it was at the top of Forest Road, going on to Woodford. On the other side of the road there is a reservoir; and, of course, we could not remove that. We came to an agreement with the Forestry Commissioners not to purchase, but to exchange, land. I understand that it is the policy of the Forestry Commissioners that in no circumstances will they sell or lease forest land, but that they will exchange it for other land contiguous to the forest. Something like that may be provided for in this Bill.
The Minister referred to the Sub-section following that which it is proposed to leave out. I thought he rather over-stressed the point that the word "dispose" does not necessarily mean "sell," and may mean exchanging or leasing the land, or disposing of it in any other way. If the word "sale" were taken out in the following Sub-section, I think that that would meet the requirements of the local authorities, and that it would be an improvement. Why should the local authorities sell land if they do not want to do so, when the same object can be attained by exchanging or leasing the land? My authority has leased the land of which I spoke for factories, and the rent that we get from the factories actually pays for the sports ground. That, I think,

is a good way of using public land. In its present form, the Sub-section is unacceptable to all local authorities, and I was rather surprised that the Minister did not indicate his willingness to make any concession. He said that negotiations had been, and were still, going on, but I would like him to make some concession to the unanimous view of all local authorities, whether they are Tory or Socialist or whatever they may be. I am not afraid of this power, as a politician, because I am an optimist, and I am quite certain that in the next Government, and in all succeeding Governments, the Minister will be a Socialist. I have full confidence that his inclination will be for public ownership of all land. But, apart from that, I do not think that a Minister, whoever he may be, should be able to settle everything on a political basis. This Sub-section will not satisfy the local authorities, and the Minister should make a concession to their unanimous demand.

Viscount Hincbingbrooke: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in thinking that this is a very necessary power, and that it ought to be retained in the Bill. May I direct the attention of the hon. Member opposite to the fact that this Sub-section has regard to the wording of Sub-section (2), which says that
the authority may dispose of any such land to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may appear to them to be expedient in order to secure the use to the best advantage of that or other land.
My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) gave an example of how this might work where a local authority was dominated by members of the Party opposite. May I give an example of how it might work in the reverse case, if the local authority was dominated by members of another Party? It seems quite possible that we might have a joint planning authority, rather separate from the local authority, which was preparing plans for the whole area, and that the local authority concerned, being dominated by members of another party, was only too anxious to dispose of land to certain interests which they knew about in the town, who were prepared to build, rather cheaply and hurriedly, an enormous housing estate, for example, on a piece of perfectly good land. Would it not be a good thing for


the Minister to step in in those circumstances and say, "No, it is quite improper," and that this land should be let temporarily to a local farmer for grazing purposes until the plans of the joint planning authority were ready, and until a change of circumstances occurred in the municipality and the whole building project could be put through on properly-planned lines. It seems to me that this Sub-section relates to the interests of proper planning, and I think hon. Members opposite might agree with it.

Mr. G. Griffiths: This is not a queston of retaining land; Sub-section (7) says that they must dispose of the land, not own the land.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Under Subsection (8) they can arrange to lease it temporarily, I understand, while some other arrangement is being made, in order that the land may subsequently be properly planned.

Mr. Gallacher: Some amazing arguments have been put forward by the land-grabbers on the other side in order to retain the land, but the most amazing I have heard are those that are now being put forward in order to grab back that land which they have lost. Arguments have been put in this House, and particularly by the Minister, that can only be described as being something in the nature of political abortion, something that would finish entirely any suggestion of democracy in this country. I am certain that never in the history of this Parliament has there been an argument like that which the Minister has put forward to-day. Members opposite see only one thing. Here is a chance to grab back land which has been obtained by the public authority. The Minister said that not only political difficulties, but religious differences, might enter into the matter. A religious majority may, in the Minister's opinion, be dealing unfairly with a religious minority. His idea is that a local authority may be composed, in the majority, of Anglicans, and they have a piece of land. In the course of reconstruction, they decide to build an English church. If a minority of Nonconformists want to build a Nonconformist church, and there is a Nonconformist Minister, they will go to the Nonconformist Minister, and he will say, "The Anglican majority are dealing unfairly with the

Nonconformist minority." It is perfectly disgusting. Or if there is a Nonconformist majority, an Anglican Minister will force them to build an Anglican church. Let us take it the other way. If there is a Tory majority in power—

Earl Winterton: Or a Moslem majority.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: If there is a Tory majority, composed of Members such as the Noble Lord, and any jerry builder comes along and wants a piece of land that the local authority themselves should use, they will immediately say to the Tory builders, "Go ahead; you can have the land." Do you think the Minister will interfere with that sort of thing? No. If there were a Socialist majority and they were doing a bit of planning, and the Socialist majority decided that, in a piece of land which they owned, a good central feature on that land would be a co-operative stores, then all the old gang in this country would be out after the Minister to get him to intervene and to get some private building or industry on that land. Does any hon. Member mean to suggest that that is the sort of thing which we should have beginning to operate in this country? The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that Parliament should have directed general planning, but the Minister and Parliament have the right to direct that general planning. This has nothing to do with general planning. This has to do with local authorities which have in their possession certain pieces of land, and the private landowners, and the disreputable and un-scrupulous representatives of private landowners, will do everything in their power to try and get that land back out of the hands of the local authorities. To suggest that the Minister should interfere in these majorities and minorities on local authorities is entirely out of the question, and should not be tolerated for a moment.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am bound to say that, as I listened to the Debate, I have been astonished to hear some of the arguments put forward and to note the speakers from whom they came. The most vigorous attack on the State having anything to do with planning came from the representative of the Communist Party, and constituted the most remarkable thing in the Debate. It is, of course, a fact that a Minister can make a mistake. It is equally a fact that a local authority


can make a mistake. The question is, if there is to be, as there may be, under this Bill, in many areas what is virtually a land monopoly in the hands of the local authority, whether this House desires that the ultimate control should be with the local authority or with the Minister responsible to this House. That is the question, and it is a very simple question.

Mr. Gallacher: Does the Minister argue that, where there are a majority and a minority in a local authority, and a decision has been arrived at by majority decision, the Minister should have the right to intervene and give a decision in favour of the minority against the majority?

Mr. Strauss: I think I stated the matter quite fairly, and I do not withdraw one word I said. If the hon. Member objects to a Minister of Town and Country Planning with powers—

Mr. Gallacher: I do not.

Mr. Strauss: —he should have opposed the Bill which set up the Ministry and created the Minister with the following duties:
To secure consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales.
I say that, if the Minister is to perform his function, it is absolutely essential to him that he shall have some such power as is given by this Sub-section.

Mr. Messer: May I ask if it is not true that this Sub-section goes beyond the user, and directs not merely the user of the land, but the ownership?

Mr. Strauss: I think we shall get on faster if I am allowed to develop my own speech. I shall not try to evade arguments but will try to deal with all these points.
I divide my argument into two parts. First, is power of this sort necessary, and, secondly, is any appropriate safeguard needed beyond what is already in the Bill? On the first point, I say that, if you want a Minister of Town and Country Planning with any real power at all, the final power in the matter must Test with him. To give a land monopoly in an area to the local authority, and for the Minister to have no positive control whatever in the disposal of land, is to make

the Minister incapable of performing the functions which Parliament has conferred upon him. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), speaking with knowledge of the Birmingham Corporation, said that, in his opinion, these powers were unnecessary. I think my hon. Friend is wrong. Let me show him how the Clause works. A local authority, by the powers which it has acquired under this Act, obtains the whole area. It is perfectly true, that it has given certain ideas on how it proposes to lay out and develop it. Nevertheless, when it comes to the disposal of the land they must obtain the leave of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and they cannot, in fact, dispose of it without his leave.
Let me give a possible example of a local authority which puts up a series of proposals which the Minister cannot approve, or even a negligent authority which does not put up proposals at all. Are we, in such a case, to be absolutely defeated and incapable of producing any development in their area at all? Certainly not. But let me say at once that I hope we shall continue to work in the closest possible co-operation with local authorities. This power is essential, and, indeed, no self-respecting Minister could begin to work without it, because his office would become a sham. At the same time, while he could not carry on without these powers, the powers are intended to be reserve powers only. I think it was the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) who raised the question why we should ever want to direct a sale. I should say that the cases in which we should want to direct a sale would be very rare, but I can think of one example—if the Established Church wanted to consecrate a piece of land. I think there are cases, affecting religious bodies, where a sale would be the right step. I do not wish to say anything further as to the necessity for such a Clause.
We now pass to the question whether there ought to be any safeguards. I do not think there is any danger, if the Clause is left as it is, but conversations, as I think my right hon. Friend said, are proceeding with the local authorities to see whether we can agree on some safeguards in this Clause which will give us everything we require and relieve them of fears, even though we think those fears are unreasonable.
Now I want to turn to a matter suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) who asked about an inquiry. I think our conversations with the association of authorities may well be on those lines. We should retain absolutely the power that we have got in this Clause, but say that before the Minister makes a direction, he shall give the local authority, to whom he contemplates giving such a direction, a right of hearing. I think there is also a possibility of a safeguard, regarding any disposal of land which may be ordered, and that is providing arbitration on the price at which such a disposal should take place. I think these are safeguards, and that if we proceed with the local authorities on these lines and can agree on them, it will not in any way defeat our object, but it will relieve their anxiety which we do not believe is well grounded. To hon. Members who said that we do not need these powers at all, I say that they are absolutely essential. If any hon. Member opposes this view, let him at least abandon the pretence that he still believes in central planning.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee has put across a piece of oratorical bluff. What has been the basis of the statement he has just made? It is a basis that is absolutely false and cannot be justified in the history of the relationship between local authorities and any Government, to my knowledge. It is this—that the local authorities are, or may be, indifferent or reactionary so far as the needs of planning and rebuilding their areas are concerned, and that the Government, through the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, may be more progressive than the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is the local authorities which have been the drive and urge for social betterment in this country, and not the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Merthyr Tydfil."]I did not get up to discuss conditions, in my own constituency, but it comes most unhappily from an hon. Member representing Croydon that he should, by implication, accuse Merthyr Tydfil of being a reactionary authority.

Sir Herbert Williams: I said Merthyr Tydfil was extravagant, not reactionary.

Mr. Davies: I do know this—that, in the history of Merthyr Tydfil, a great deal of time has been taken up by the authority in trying to get one Government Department after another to show a little wisdom, to show a little energy and vision, so far as replanning our old industrial areas are concerned. The hon. Gentleman cannot persuade this side of the Committee that we have now a most progressive Minister who needs this power in order to whip up the reactionary local authorities in this country. That is the assumption; if it is not, the Minister has no case whatever. The hon. Gentleman told us that there were conversations going on with representatives of local authorities on this particular matter, but these conversations have been going on for several weeks and it is rather surprising that no agreement has been come to yet. I am forced to the conclusion that the Government want this arbitrary power—a power which it will use in a most suspicious fashion—and I am not prepared to concede it, either to the Minister or the Government. The hon. Gentleman told us that the Government might agree that the question of the price of the land to be taken away from the local authority might be submitted to arbitration.
Why not agree that the whole question of whether the land should be taken from the local authority, be submitted to arbitration? Why suggest that it is only the price that is in question? The local authority is interested in the land, and the local authority is the best body to know how to develop the land within its own area.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I think he may be under a misapprehension on one point. He has mentioned frequently the taking away of the land from the local authority. I want to make certain he has the position right in his mind. If this power were exercised, it would generally mean directing the local authority to grant a lease, but the local authority would then remain the landlord.

Mr. Davies: It does not say so. I am forced to the conclusion that this Clause has been forced upon the Government by the most reactionary section in this Committee, and I am surprised that the


Government have given in to this pressure. It is a Clause which has been inspired by the landlord spirit in this Committee, and I am sure that the local authorities of this country will agree with what has been said from this side of the Committee, that they are not prepared to accept quietly this intrusion upon their right and the crippling of their power in rebuilding so many parts of the country.

Mr. Silkin: I am satisfied that some such power as is conveyed in this Subsection is necessary. It would be necessary even if there were a Labour Minister not subjected to the kind of pressure which my hon. Friend alleges in the case of the present Minister. It is necessary in the interests of good planning, and I do not understand how it will be possible to carry out effective planning unless some such power is given. But I equally feel that local authorities are entitled to have satisfactory safeguards that the Minister will not be the judge in his own court. This Sub-section will come into operation only where there is, shall we say, a bona fide difference between the ideas of the local authorities and those of the Minister, and the Sub-section provides that, in such a case, the Minister shall decide and be the judge. I feel that there ought to be some safeguard, if only to enable the local authorities to feel that they are not being unjustly treated, I, personally, would be content if Parliament were the final court of appeal. Obviously, there will be very few cases where the Minister will have to decide, but if every case where it is necessary for the Minister to direct a local authority to dispose of land were laid on the Table of this House, we should then be able to hear all the arguments. Subject to such a safeguard I feel the Minister must be given the power set out.

Sir H. Williams: I have listened very carefully to the last two speeches. I agree somewhat with the last one, but not very much with the first. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) is very concerned with Merthyr Tydfil. Merthyr Tydfil indulged in extravagance, while existing on the charity of the rest of the country.

Mr. S. O. Davies: May I be permitted to describe that statement as an unmitigated lie?

The Chairman: That expression is not permissible and I must call upon the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) to withdraw it.

Mr. Davies: Very well, Major Milner, I will withdraw the noun but not the adjective.

Sir H. Williams: The last time I went to Merthyr Tydfil the cinemas were full, the shops were full, 70 per cent, of the people were unemployed, ruined by the reluctance—

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not pursue that line of argument.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I point out that I have sympathy with my hon. Friend? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He has been blackguarded, and it is as well that hon. Members should know that if one side uses hard language, the other side is entitled to do so also.

Sir H. Williams: I am not quite clear whether I am the goose or the gander. Under the law as it stands, local authorities, unless they have special powers, are not entitled to retain surplus land; There are three or four classes of landlord in this country. Local authorities are one class, the Crown is another, there is the type of people called landlords—I am not one except to the extent of three-quarters of an acre—and there are larger corporations, such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Which are the worst landlords? The worst landlords are always either the State or municipalities, for a very simple reason. They have a statutory duty to get all they can out of it. Take the City of Westminster in which we are situated—

The Chairman: That question really does not arise. I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue it further.

Sir H. Williams: With great respect, the question at issue in this Clause is, whether it is, on general grounds, desirable that a Minister shall say to a local authority, "You have got to sell your land." That is what this Sub-section means. That implies either a lease or a sale. Surely, under that head, we are entitled to consider the respective merits of the other interests, in other words, to consider whether a town council is a better landlord than a private individual.
I have not the slightest doubt that I would much rather be the tenant of a private individual than of a local authority. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting behind me are so beset with prejudice that they will not examine the facts. The local authority, as I have said, are under the statutory duty to exact the last farthing from anybody. They are not entitled to be considerate landlords. Their duty is to get all they can. I was going to use the analogy between the State and the local authority; there is only a difference of degree. The local authority is a localised expression of the State. Is the State a good landlord? Nobody would say so who walks up Regent Street. There are two landlords in Westminster—one a Duke and one the Crown. No one has ever seen a more oppressive landlord than the landlord of Regent Street—the worst landlord in the history of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is capitalism."]No, not capitalism; State Socialism.

Mr. H. Lawson: In spite of the: arguments used that the Sub-section as it stands is too wide and open to many objections, on the other hand, a case may have been made out for these powers on a very much restricted scale and with safeguards. As conversations are taking place between the Minister and local authorities, I suggest that the most convenient course is for the Government to accept the Amendment to strike out the Sub-section and at a later stage bring the matter before the House again.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I regret that I cannot support the Clause because under Sub-section (5) we find a very definite ruling that the Minister will part with the freehold of the land only in most exceptional circumstances. I would ask the Minister why he takes up that point of view. I consider that more progress would be likely if every tenant was able to hold the freehold of his own home. It is far better for a country to have a vast number of small, individual owners than tenants of either the big landlord or, still worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) pointed out, of the State. I can see no excuse

whatever for the land having to be delivered just as the planning authorities want it to be. They have it their own way on every possible occasion. Why should they not sell the freehold to the occupiers of houses; why must those occupiers always be their tenants? I think that there must be something behind this. What are to be the terms of the lease which my right hon. Friend is going to grant? What kind of burdens and restrictions may be put into that lease? There may be all kinds of provisos and restrictions which would not be there if they sold the freehold to the occupants of the houses. Therefore, I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend should eliminate the word "exceptional" on the Report stage or at some later period, if possible. It may be argued against parting with the freehold that, by only granting a lease, it enables the Minister, when the land wants redeveloping, to get immediate possession, because the leases are to be of the same duration. But in the Bill provisions are clearly laid down under which, if the area wants redeveloping at a later time, he has powers once more to acquire land for redeveloping, so that I cannot see that there is much argument there. It is said that to sell the lease is as good as selling the freehold. It is no such thing. I would invite the attention of the hon. Member who said he was in favour of every occupier being the owner of his own house. It is not the same thing to sell a lease. If you sell the freehold, the occupier of the freehold has a sense of pride and a feeling that he has a stake in the country. You would get a healthier community as a whole, and such free-holders have a spirit of independence, which I wish my hon. Friends above the Gangway would try to encourage in the community at large.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. A. MacLaren: Does that imply that our people, who have been in the majority landless, have no spirit of independence?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It means no such thing, but it means that if a man owns a freehold house he is an individual with a stake in the country and has a feeling of independence. Hon. Members above the Gangway must one day decide whether they wish to see the individuals of this country raised, or the whole lot of us really to be serfs in a State machine.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. and gallant Member has made a most extraordinary statement. Does he think that a man has no self-respect and independence if he is living in a hired house?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The Noble Lady is stretching a point. I said no such thing, but I do say that a man who owns his own little home has a stake in the country and gets a feeling of independence more than a man who is a tenant.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one issue on this Clause. I had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the Clause from a commercial and industrial point of view, and under the Clause as drafted the planning authority is able to dispose of the land or let the land only with the consent of the Minister. Here, I fall in with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) who drew attention to the word "exceptional." That word presupposes that these conditions would not be afforded except in very rare cases. The granting of a long lease for educational or cultural reasons was rather explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that there might be an exceptional case, but he did not mention anything with regard to the case of an industrial or commercial enterprise.
In modern days the laying down of a plant involves very heavy capital expenditure. A 99 years' lease may be all right when a plant starts, tout after some years, when you get towards the middle of the lease, the question of further development might be very restricted if there were only a limited number of years remaining on the lease. I would have liked the Minister to give power to the planning authority to grant leases of this nature to commercial or industrial concerns and that the word "exceptional" should not apply in this Sub-section. I can foresee that, if development on a long lease system is not permitted, you will not get these great modern plants put down adjoining a city, as they must do, as the labour has to come from the city. I hope that the Minister, when he considers action, will not interpret the word "exceptional" so narrowly as to prevent a longer lease than 99 years being granted.

Mr. Messer: When the Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the Debate on Sub-section (7), he gave an undertaking that local authorities would be heard and that, indeed, he was prepared to see that arbitration took place in regard to the price, because no mention is made in that Subsection or in the Clause as to the possible direction of disposal bearing with it responsibility for the recognition of the price that should be established. I was pleased to see that, but there is a matter which is rather important. I cannot quite see why the Minister wants power of direction of disposal to any particular person. I can see that, if we are to have national planning, the Minister must have some authority. There will be local authorities acting inconsistently with each other in the general interests of planning unless there is some over-riding authority which can determine the user but, having determined it, I see no reason why the Minister should take power to direct the disposal to a particular person. I would be glad if the Minister would give that his attention, because it is one of the matters about which the local authorities themselves are rather anxious.
There is another aspect of this question to which attention should be directed. A local authority will acquire land not for the purpose of planning, but it will appropriate some of that land for such a purpose. For the first time a local authority will be in the hands of the Minister as to the direction of the disposal of land which primarily was not acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act but for other purposes and in the planning a change has take place. If the Minister comes along and directs that that land should be used in a particular way, it is then for the local authority to say that it would be in its interest if that land were to be used for the original purpose. I think it is rather important that this precedent has been established—that land which is acquired by a public authority can be directed away from it. I agree that where the Minister can show that it is in the interests of planning that it should be done he has a case, but then all the interested parties should be heard in addition to the local authority concerned, and to that extent I hope he will give this particular Sub-section fresh consideration with these points in mind.

Mr. Hammersley: I would like to support what was said by the hon. and gal-


lant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Lieut.-Colonel Guest) in respect of commercial undertakings where, by nature of the fact that machinery and plant which are required in the development of modern production are of such a character, they should have some definite security of tenure, and that 99 years is inadequate. However, I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to another case affected by this Clause and that is the case of the general retailer. I have been consulted by people speaking on behalf of the general body of retailers in the country who are particularly affected by this Clause which provides for the disposal by the local authority of land which they have taken over in process of their planning. Now a retailer quite naturally has set up his shop in a particular district, and it is necessary for him, as it may not be necessary for a person who owns a house, to be re-accommodated in the area in which he formerly carried on his business.
I put this to the Minister for his consideration. Suppose there is an owner of a piece of land on which he has built a retail shop and developed a good business. The land in the neighbourhood is blitzed and the whole area is taken over by the competent authority and becomes a planned area and subsequently is disposed of by the local authority. Now that particular individual has his piece of land taken over from him on the basis of the 1939 valuation. He may not, in fact, have anything done to his piece of property, but when it is returned to him by the local authority, he may have to pay rental on the basis of a capitalisation of 1945 values. The Minister may say that that particular point is covered by Subsection (6), the last words of which say the local authority must have
…due regard to the price at which any such land has been acquired from them.
I would put it to the Minister that there is a necessity to safeguard the retailer who, by reason of his business in that vicinity, should be assured that he does not suffer any real hardship which does not arise out of planning but may arise through planning taking over the land and his subsequently having a lease given to him in accordance with this Clause.
I would like to reinforce another point which was made, namely, that when a retailer gets a lease he is really entitled

to have a lease of a piece of land which bears some similarity to the piece of land taken from him. It is not quite good enough that he should be given land in the same area, there should be some regard to the particular situation. The Committee will readily appreciate that it would be a great hardship to be given a piece of land which would put a person who was previously the owner of a shop in a front street in a back street. I hope that when the Minister replies to this Clause, he will have regard to those important considerations, which I am sure must appeal to all Members of the Committee. I understand that certain Amendments down in my name, some of which have not been called, will be favourably considered, though not in the form in which they have been put, and I would like to remind the Minister that those Amendments have been put down by me at the behest of the representatives of retail traders and because I thought, with a very limited knowledge of the subject, that they were fair and reasonable.

Mr. Lewis: I regret very much that the Minister has thought it necessary to include in this Clause provisions which would appear to be deliberately designed to discourage people from owning their own homes. I have always found it hard to understand why some of my hon. Friends opposite who have spent their lives in endeavouring to secure for manual workers a higher standard of living and a brighter future, should so consistently seek to deny to those workers the right to own their own homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]Yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite untrue."]I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) that it is a most laudable ambition for any man to own his own home.
3.30 p.m.
Let me put a case, which might arise under this Clause, for the consideration of hon. Members opposite in particular. Suppose we have to consider a number of houses erected by a building society, the occupiers of which have gradually paid off the charges and ultimately have owned their own homes. Suppose those houses have been destroyed by enemy action. The local authority, under this Clause, eventually offers to the occupier-owners similar accommodation, but on


lease. I do not imagine that the Minister would consider that these were exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of this Clause and would, therefore, be obliged to refuse a request by a local authority that they might sell those houses to the occupiers. That seems to be most unreasonable, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider between now and the next stage of the Bill whether Sub-section (5) might not be varied in order to prevent such a thing occurring.

Commander Bower: I also want to suggest to the Minister that if he is not prepared to withdraw Sub-section (5) altogether he might substantially amend it in order to meet the points which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). One can understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I think their policy was wisely described by the Prime Minister some years ago when he said of Mr. George Lansbury—

The Chairman: The question of what was said by the Prime Minister is getting away from this Clause.

Commander Bower: I shall be only too delighted to leave it, Major Milner, if discussion is to be kept within the strict terms of the Clause. May I be allowed to say that our point of view on this side of this House varies very much, indeed, fundamentally, from that of Members opposite. After all, nobody is yet in a position to claim that State or municipal ownership is the only form of ownership which has any virtue in it. We are not prepared to admit that all private landowners are necessarily as black as soot, nor are we prepared to admit that all planning, however bad, is necessarily virtuous. If the Minister is tied, as this Sub-section seeks to tie him, in rapidly changing conditions, it seems to me that the country may find itself in a difficult position as regards town planning in a few years' time. Who can foresee what will happen under these changing conditions? Here the Minister will be prevented, save in the most exceptional circumstances, from granting a freehold. That, I suggest, is going too far. Every argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary in favour of the Minister retaining powers under Sub-section (7) can be used against the provisions of Sub-

section (5). I would, therefore, ask the Minister to consider this matter seriously indeed, because many of us feel strongly. Unfortunately, because certain Amendments were not called, we are bound to raise this question on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We do not wish to vote against that Motion, but I can assure the Minister that we shall bring the matter to a Division unless a good argument can be put forward for retaining the Sub-section or a substantial amendment of it is made.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have no desire to truncate the discussion, but the time is getting on and I hope I may be allowed to explain some of the points which have been raised so that we can proceed. We have a great deal yet to do. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Colonel Guest), in a case of an exceptional character it would be possible to treat it under the words of the Bill as they stand. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) asked me why it was proposed to take power to direct the disposal of land to a particular person. I explained earlier that that was a reserve power in case there was victimisation of any person belonging to a religious or political minority which common justice and the desire of the House would wish to see remedied. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley), I want to point out that Sub-section (6) gives as much protection to the retailers for whom he was concerned as we have found it practicable to give, and I think it enables local authorities to act in a just and friendly manner towards those who are dispossessed.
I would ask the Committee to understand and appreciate that what as proposed in this Sub-section, to which exception has been taken, does not raise the general question of freehold as against leasehold. What we have to consider is whether it is wise and prudent, now we are proposing to put a certain amount of land into public ownership by the local authorities, with the aid of assistance from central funds, that that land should be easily and readily disposable as freehold property, without any restrictions. The main reasons why I want the Committee to consent to this Clause are these: It is a fact that we have to look ahead here beyond present circumstances in which we


find ourselves. There is no doubt that ownership by a planning authority of their freehold does give it control over the future of its area for planning purposes, which would not be easy if it were immediately split up again into a number of individual freeholds. I have to look ahead to my successor, say 99 years hence, when conditions will have entirely changed, and a new plan may be required to be made. If land is split up into numerous interests, with which we are finding it so difficult and expensive to deal, the same problem would occur.
I ask my hon. Friend on this side of the Committee to remember how much of the beauty of our towns, and of London in particular, we owe to the leasehold system and control of vast blocks of buildings by a single landlord. The beauty of our London squares, such of them as remain, is derived from the fact that they were in the ownership of a single person, that they were leased for a period appropriate to the life of the building. Social and political causes, to which I do not want to refer in any detail, have resulted in the splitting of these squares into a number of small freeholds. Who can say that the good planning of our London squares has benefited from that process? It has not. Many of the disfigurements about which many of us lament are due to the fact that the controlling hand has been removed. We know that but for the exercise by great landlords in the past of qualities of taste and culture, protecting their property against commercialism and insisting on a standard of dignity and duty, we should not be the possessors today of places like Bath, our London squares and many other beauty spots that still exist.
Nor should hon. Members in any part of the Committee fear that a properly administered leasehold system is contrary to the proper life of the community and its business activity. A great deal of the commercial activity of the country is carried on on the leasehold system. No doubt it can be abused. You can get a building lease falling in at the end of 99 years and the ground landlord continuing to let what are out-moded and crumbling premises, maybe at an extortionate rent, but, given the control that I am asking for for myself and my successors, I hope the leasehold system will be efficiently and well administered, and I

see no reason why leases should not be granted proportionate to the proper life of the building so that when they fall in, the matter can be considered again and replanned. Properly administered, the leasehold system will make for unified control for planning in the future, and it can assist private enterprise as efficiently as any other system of tenure.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Are we to take it that the average tenant will have the security of a very long lease, because it says it is the maximum? How do we know not that it will not be 21 years or even less?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. and gallant Friend looks at the condition of commercial or industrial premises built, say, in 1845, how fit axe they for their use today? No doubt in an exceptional case there might be a longer life, but that case, would have to be proved.

Sir J. Mellor: The Minister said one thing with which I most strongly agree. He said this was a planning Bill, but he proceeded to say many things which indicated that he viewed it to some extent also as a Bill for promoting public ownership. There is a very sharp distinction between the two, which should be borne in mind throughout this Committee stage. I cannot see why this restriction should be put on disposal by way of freehold or the grant of a long lease, because the planning authorities surely can be relied upon to exercise a sensible discretion as to how they dispose of the property acquired having regard to their planning scheme, the period during which the buildings can be expected to survive in good condition, and so on. Indeed, in Sub-section (2) it is provided that they may dispose of such land subject to such conditions as may appear to them to be expedient in order to secure the use of the land to the best advantage. That is the responsibility of the planning authority and, even if they dispose of the freehold, or grant leases exceeding 99 years, they can easily secure compliance with any conditions they consider necessary by the imposition of restrictive covenants. Surely there is no need for the planning authority to lose control at all. They have their plan and they can, in disposing of the freehold or granting long leases, secure that the plan is perpetuated. I hope my right hon. Friend will


think again about this, because I am certain that he does not mean to convert the Bill from a planning Bill into becoming one for the promotion of public ownership, although some of the remarks which fell from him gave that impression. I strongly object to the Clause so long as it contains Sub-section (5) intact, and I really feel that we ought to divide against it unless the Minister is prepared to undertake that he will modify the provisions Of this Sub-section in order to conform with his real intention, as I believe it to be, in the course of the next stage of the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There seems to me to be an inconsistency in the Clause that ought to be put right. The Subsection that we have just been considering gives the Minister power to order the disposal by sale of any land that he thinks fit, but when we consider the case of a local authority which for some reason or other wants to sell the land, it will not be able to get permission to do so unless it can show that it is an exceptional case. There is no definition of an exceptional case, as far as I know. If there are two cases of the same sort, is either of them exceptional? What number must there be of the same sort to cease to be exceptional? I see no reason for the limitation upon the Minister's power. I see no reason why he should not have an unfettered discretion to give his consent to any application by a local authority for permission to sell. That is the issue—hot whether leaseholds are better than freeholds but whether, if a local authority wants to sell, the Minister can give his decision without the local authority having to prove that it is an exceptional case. I suppose if a local authority want to sell, and it is not an exceptional case, and the Minister thinks they should have power to sell, if the Clause remains in its present form he will have to give a direction under Sub-section (7) ordering them to sell. On technical grounds the Clause seems to me to be a little inconsistent.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: The Clause as it stands contains a great many words which could be cut out without altering the sense of it very much. There is, however, one word whose removal would alter the meaning to a considerable extent but would strengthen and improve it and give

effect to some of our wishes on this side. I think if the word "exceptional" in Sub-section (5) were omitted it would strengthen the Bill and enable it to do what a great many of us will want to do, namely, encourage as far as possible the right of a man to own his own home freehold. Of course I agree with what the Minister said, that leasehold is a good form for certain types of property, but I do not think he met the case at all, which was that, however good leasehold might be, equally good is freehold and it ought to be encouraged. Therefore I ask him to consider the omission of the one word "exceptional," when the Clause would have my full support.

Sir Percy Harris: I feel that we are under an obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for his statesmanlike and wise speech. I always believed that he would be a good Minister in this Department, and I feel that his understanding of planning is such that this Bill will be wisely administered. I was amazed at the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), for parts of Edinburgh are fine examples of good planning.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: The beauties of Edinburgh were created entirely by private enterprise and the ownerships are all freehold.

Sir P. Harris: Many parts of Edinburgh are good examples of good planning, but other parts are bad examples of development because of the absence of planning. I agree that where there is a big landlord, as with the Bedford estate, developing a whole area, we get fine examples of planning which have been the admiration of the world. On the other hand, where there are a great number of small landlords there are piecemeal developments of the worst form and slums. If this Bill is to fulfill its purpose the one thing we want to avoid is little bits of land here and there being sold to isolated individuals. That would mean all the atrocities which this Bill gives us the opportunity to prevent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be led astray by the 1922 Committee, which is so militant on this Clause, but that he will keep it in its present form.

Captain Duncan: I agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green


(Sir P. Harris) that we all admire the present Minister, but we are legislating for the future when the Minister may not be such an excellent planner. We must, therefore, take care about the words we put into a Statute which may last for longer than 99 years. I would like to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) and others about Subsection (5). It seems to me unnecessary and inadvisable to limit the Minister's discretion to dispose of freehold land that has been bought. In Sub-section (4) the consent of the Minister is requisite to any appropriation of land by a planning authority, and he has complete discretion. The disposal of land has also to go to him. It therefore seems wrong that he should so limit his discretion to deal with it as the local authority or, indeed himself may think fit. It is a pity that he should refuse the discretion to which we think he is entitled. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether Sub-section (5) is really necessary or advisable. My right hon. Friend said that he has to look forward for 99 years, but this Bill will perhaps last longer than that.
For the whole of that period the land will be subject to the local planning authority, and the ill-development which he fears cannot happen, because the use of the land will be controlled. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division (Lieut.-Colonel Guest) pointed out that there are many cases of commercial and perhaps retail businesses where it is desirable that the freehold rather than the leasehold should be held, and I am not certain that "exceptional circumstances" can be held by the courts to absolve the Minister from selling in cases where it is agreed that the sale should take place. What are "exceptional circumstances"? I hope that the Minister will look at these words again, and, if he will not get rid of the Subsection, will see whether they cannot be altered to meet the general sense of the Committee. As an individual, I support the ordinary Conservative principle of Tory democracy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with that. They believe in Socialist control and the public ownership of everything. I do not, and I do not like this sort of legislation in which we are handing over enormous areas of land—

Mr. MacLaren: At a price.

Captain Duncan: We will deal with the price later on. We are handing over enormous areas of land for permanent ownership, not by the State, but by local authorities. I believe that it is in the interests of the individual, the man in the street, and generally speaking in the interest of the State, that there should be a property-owning democracy and not a nation of tenants.

Sir William Wayland: I am surprised to see the Liberal Party, especially the right hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) supporting leaseholds. Not very many years ago his party was a protagonist against all leaseholds, whether private or public, and I cannot see why the party should now support leaseholds. It is just as bad for a public body to have leaseholds as for a private person. I am a great believer in all leaseholds being done away with and only freeholds remaining. Why should we again create leaseholds under this Bill? I cannot see where the advantage will be or why the Minister should deprive public authorities of freedom to sell the land which they are to be forced to acquire. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) truly remarked, small cottages, especially in the North and Midlands, which are mainly owned by the working-class or people with small incomes, are freehold to-day, but to-morrow will become leasehold if they are in areas which have been blitzed and which have to be purchased by the public authorities. I hope that the Minister will agree to a modification of the Clause so that public bodies shall be free to grant freeholds when they consider it necessary.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — >CLAUSE 16.— [Power of planning Authority to carry out development of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

4.0 p.m.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such power shall be exercisable by a local planning authority unless a notice in the prescribed form describing the proposed operation is published by local advertisement either at the time of application to the Minister or prior thereto.

The Chairman: I venture to suggest that we might include in the discussion upon this Amendment the two Amendments which follow it upon the Order Paper, one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd)—in page 22, line 41, at the end, to insert:
but shall not be given unless the Minister is satisfied that the notice in the last preceding Sub-section referred to has been duly published and until twenty-eight days have expired since the publication,
and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones)—in page 22, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Provided that before application is made to the Minister for his consent to the erection, construction or carrying out of any building or work under the authority of this section, the local planning authority shall publish by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality a notice stating their intention to erect construct or carry out the building or work and stating where it is intended that it shall be situated and the purpose for which it is required.

Major Lloyd: In this Amendment, we suggest, to the Committee, a very important principle is involved, and we hope that the Minister will look upon it with favour, and will accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it is offered, as a helpful addition to the machinery which he is endeavouring to set up. Hitherto we have been confining ourselves largely to the acquisition of land by the local planning authorities. To all intents and purposes they have now got it, after a long and weary discussion. We now pass on to the important question of what they are to do with it. There is a question of whether they are to have a monopoly in the erection of buildings upon that land, and the Amendment suggests that it is important that private enterprise should have every facility for making its contribution in connection with the development of the land by way of erection of buildings, etc.
The Clause encourages private enterprise to participate and make its bid; the object of the Amendment is to give private enterprise an even fairer chance, and to make quite sure that everybody in a locality who can make a contribution, and who would like to bid to erect any of these buildings, shall have full knowledge of the intentions of the local authority, not only by way of advertisement but by the fact that the Minister

will not give his consent until, as we propose in another Amendment, a period of 28 days has elapsed. In that way the local authority will give real, good, sound notice to all private enterprises and private firms of their intentions under the Clause.
I hope that the Minister will feel that the Amendment strengthens his hands and helps him in the difficult and responsible task laid upon him under Sub-section (3), and that it gives a fairer deal to the many individuals who, we want to feel, are given an opportunity, under private enterprise, to participate in the work of building on the land compulsorily acquired by the local authority.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have not been able to examine this matter in complete detail yet, but I am impressed by what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I have to satisfy myself that other people are able and willing to carry out the proper development, and it seems to me to follow logically that his argument is sound, and that there should be some sort of notice, so that such people who may be within the area should be able to present themselves. That being so, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment and will give me an opportunity to examine it in a little more detail, on the understanding that if I find no insuperable obstacle to it, I will introduce an Amendment on another stage giving effect to this intention.

Major Lloyd: In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir P. Bennett: I beg to move, in page 22, line 42, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
(3) For the purposes of the last preceding Sub-section as respects any operation a local planning authority, if they think fit and with the consent of the Minister, may make arrangements with any person considered by them to be able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed.
The Clause places a somewhat severe restriction on the powers of local planning authorities. The restriction may result in the authorities being left with only un-remunerative parts of the area to develop, and consequently there will be little relief to the rates to set against the cost of the


original acquisition. It also seems important, in the interest of small businesses and shopkeepers, that the erection, maintenance, and management of the alternative premises provided for their use on the land acquired should be in responsible hands. There is a risk of exploitation. No doubt many people would be willing and anxious to carry out the purposes specified in the Clause, but local authorities feel very strongly that the functions should rest with them. The Amendment has been submitted for mat purpose.

Mr. Hynd: I support the Amendment, for the reason that the Amendment in my name to delete the Sub-section altogether has not been called. I hope that the Committee will support the Amendment, which has the same effect as my own. The Clause provides that the functions of the planning authority shall include power to develop the land, and so on. Sub-section (2) makes provision that the local authority shall not be in a position to proceed with development without first obtaining the consent of the Minister, and there is a further provision that that consent may be given either with or without limitation or conditions. It might be generally thought that that was a sufficient restriction upon a Clause which purports to give additional power to local authorities for planning purposes, but the Sub-section which I desire to delete goes very much further. It says that the minister shall not give his consent—a complete negative—in any case where he considers that the land can be developed by any individual or group of individuals within the area.
The effect of that limitation is to include in the Bill a provision that where any private individual or individuals can see a profit to be made out of the development of the land, the Minister shall be prevented from allowing the local authority to develop, and that, on the other hand, if there is no profit to be made out of the development of the land and no private individual is likely to want to develop it, the local authority shall be allowed to do so. There has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed in Parliament about the financial burdens that will be imposed on local authorities after the war, as a result of legislation which we have been passing and are likely to pass, yet we find here a provision which can only have for its object

the restriction of the power of the local authority to develop land to cases where they will be mulct in a loss. They are to be prevented in any circumstances from profiting from the development. In the second place we have also heard a tremendous amount in this Committee about the desirability of encouraging enterprise. Yet when we come to a Bill which is ostensibly drafted for the purpose of expansion and not restriction of enterprise in the local authority—

Mr. W. S. Morrison: On a point of Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for interrupting him and I would not do so unless I thought I could assist him. I would call his attention, and that of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, to the Amendment which stands in my name with regard to this limitation which the hon. Member is discussing. It proposes to insert the words:
Provided that the limitation imposed by this Sub-section shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project for the initiation of which the authority have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connection with the project as a whole.
It seems to me, with deference to what you may say, Mr. Williams, that this Amendment is material to the point at issue, and if it were convenient to take them together it might save time.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee agree, it seems to me a very suitable proceeding.

Mr. Hynd: I have no objection to the other Amendment being taken at the same time. That Amendment scarcely clears up entirely the points I am making, but I agree it does provide a modification of the situation where, in the words of the Minister's Amendment, "the authority having incurred expenditure" already, they should be allowed to carry out the work and so on, but there the whole thing devolves again on the Minister, and as Sub-section (3) stands at the moment, irrespective of the further Amendment, it is definitely said that the Minister shall not give his consent where the other person is prepared and willing to carry out the development.
I suggest that is not an encouragement to any enterprising local authority, and it


is not surprising that the Association of Municipal Corporations have continued to oppose this Clause as it stands. I submit that the least this Committee can do in this situation is to leave the progressive local authorities, that is those who are prepared to develop land and develop municipal public enterprise under the powers given in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this Clause, free at least to develop where they think it is desirable and where they think they are capable of doing so, and not, as this Sub-section provides, to lay it down categorically that in all circumstances where a private individual is prepared to develop and exploit, apart from the modifications made in the Minister's Amendment, the local authority shall be entirely prevented from doing so. There is, I submit, in Sub-sections (1) and (2) already sufficient restriction on public enterprise in this direction. Under those Sub-sections it is provided that the Minister's consent must be obtained, and that the Minister's consent when obtained may be subject to conditions and restrictions laid down by the Minister. In those circumstances I think Sub-section (3) as it stands at the moment is not only entirely redundant but definitely damaging to any progressive local authority which desires to take advantage of the powers under Sub-section (1).

4.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I see there are six very good Conservative friends of mine who want to leave out Sub-section (3) and to put in something different, a mixed bag want to leave out Sub-section (3) and put in nothing, and the Minister wants to put in some words which may mean a lot or nothing. Let us have a look at this Subjection (3) we are discussing. It is a modification of Sub-section (1), and what does Sub-section (1) mean? In the language of the street the local authority can go in for "spec." building. Subsection (2) says that local authorities must not be "spec." builders unless the Minister says they may. The hon. Member speaks about profit. Why should not a profit be made? Does any Member of his party want to work for a firm that is not making a profit? This deals entirely with the man who has an idea against the man who has not an idea. The Minister says that he shall not give his assent to the local authority becoming a "spec."

builder if he knows of some other person who has a definite proposition. That is the issue. {Interruption.] That is how lawyers wrap it up. I am telling hon. Members what it really means. I do not think there is any doubt about what Sub-section (1) says. It says that the town council can be a "spec." builder. It says that they shall not commit this crime without the sanction of my distinguished right hon. Friend or his successors, but if he knows of some fellow who definitely wants to put a building on this site the town council must not go in for speculative building.
What are these sites that they are to buy? Let us take a short journey from here to that great devastated area round St. Paul's Cathedral on which there existed the premises of a great variety of people engaged in legitimate trade and business. I imagine that some of these people will want to rebuild. They will want, so far as may be possible—we know there may be some alteration to the line of the roads, etc.—to be where they were before. Why should the Tory City Corporation be permitted to get in for "spec" building in St. Paul's Churchyard, to put up a building which is not wanted or which is of a type not wanted by the man who had a building there? Is he not entitled to the first bite into what was his old site? I do not understand this great industrial community from Birmingham wanting to stop a man building his own industrial premises on what is, in fact, his own site. If the City Corporation should, for the moment, buy all the devastated land round St. Paul's Cathedral in order that they can make a little change in the roads, move the sewers, electric light mains, etc., which is very necessary before one can plan—[An HON. MEMBER: "They can do the work."]It will cost a lot of money. If a man who has had premises famous for 100 years in the soft goods trade some-where near St. Paul's Cathedral wants to rebuild his premises on a site which has been known throughout the ages, or the booksellers of Paternoster Row want to establish their premises on their ancient site, should the City Corporation of London—or the City Corporation of Birmingham, if they have a Paternoster Row—say "You must not do it"? Personally, I think if there is someone willing to develop a site, let him get on with it.

Mr. Bowles: Supposing every single person who had a tenancy or house or office or building wanted to rebuild, would the hon. Member agree to that being done?

Sir H. Williams: I am suggesting that a man who was there ought to have his bite. The man who carried on a business on a particular site is entitled to some consideration over everybody else. I am talking about Sub-section (3). If the Minister knows of somebody who is willing to do the development—there are still all the restrictions to see that the development is on the right lines—surely a man should be entitled to build on the site where his old business was carried on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]The "why" is a very obvious one. The man who has built up a business, and built up a goodwill in relation to a particular area, has rights against any other member of the community.

Mr. Molson: Since he built up the business he has been the subject of a compulsory purchase order, and that terminates his rights. He has obtained certain cash advantages in place of his business, and, therefore, his rights come to an end.

Sir H. Williams: This is the monstrous assertion of the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists: that the State is entitled to destroy your rights. They have not compensated the man for the loss of his goodwill. Hitler comes with his fire bombs, and devastates an area. That area is an area in which a man carries on his business. Is there anything in sanity, in decency, in Christianity, which justifies my high-minded Friend in saying that some great authority is entitled to deny a man the right to go back to his own premises? It is the assertion of the totalitarian State, for which the young pinks stand.

Mr. Molson: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has certainly had the advantage of clarifying this issue. If I had any doubts before as to the desirability of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), I should have very much less doubt since hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. He has chosen to take as an

example the immediate vicinity of St. Paul's Cathedral. In the course of the devastation wrought upon London the one consolation I could find in it was the prospect that it might open up the whole of that area, and give us vistas of that noble cathedral such as there never had been before.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]. It is only the unwise who jeer before they have heard one's remarks. Quite clearly it is contemplated that certain areas will be replanned. I said earlier on that that might involve a change of ownership with all the difficulties of removing sewers, and all the costs. When saying that I was interrupted. Nevertheless, a large number of persons are carrying on in that area. That area is going to be replanned. We are all in favour of it. But surely the first people entitled to consideration are those whose premises were in that area. If my hon. Friend does not agree with that, his ideas are beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Molson: It all depends on what is the position in the area. If, in the case of the rabbit warren which existed in the City of London, the planning authorities are to take into account all those vested interests, and to identify each of them and give them separate consideration, the whole object of this Bill seems to me to be upset. When I read this Clause originally, I thought that the Government had tried carefully to steer a course betwnee two different policies which would have appealed perhaps to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. It seemed to me that the purpose of this Clause was to give a very wide discretion to the planning authority, to enable it to acquire the land and to enable it to take into account all reasonable claims which might be put forward by those who had been dispossessed or who had lost their property before; and, obviously, since the whole of this Bill depends upon the work of these local authorities, we all assume, and, I think, justifiably, that they will try to do what is fair and reasonable by those who have lost their property or have been expropriated. Over and above that, a certain power of supervision and appeal lies with the Minister, who is responsible to this House.
There might be cases in which it was obviously desirable that that land which had been compulsorily purchased should again be sold for a freehold interest. The case particularly in the mind of the Government was, I believe, the case of certain churches. There might also be other cases where it was desirable that the land should be sold. But in the vast majority of cases all experience shows that business and manufacturing and trading concerns were quite satisfied to have a long leasehold interest. I think the Committee were very much impressed by the argument which my right hon. Friend the Minister put forward when he pointed out that most of the best architecture in the County of London is the result of long leaseholds given to private traders; and, in the changed circumstances of the day, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that local authorities will not avail themselves of the same powers and exercise the same discretion, equally to the advantage of future generations.
I had thought, in reading the Clause, that Sub-section (3) unduly narrowed the discretion of the local authorities. That they should be absolutely unable to exercise these powers themselves if it appeared to the Minister that some other person were able to carry out the work, seemed to be rather a strict limitation on their powers. I thought that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edgbaston offered a more constructive alternative to the policy that was in the Bill originally. It provides—again, the consent of the Minister is, of course, needed, under Subsection (2)—that if the local authority finds that somebody else is willing to carry out the work, within the framework of their own plan, the Minister may give his leave for it to be done. I hope the Minister will consider this Amendment upon its merits. It seems to me that, instead of being a narrowing Amendment, it is one which extends the discretion of the local authority; and it does not in any way remove the supervision and control which rest in the hands of the Minister himself. Therefore, I feel that it is an Amendment to which the Minister should be willing to give his sympathetic consideration.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I should like to support the Amendment in the name of the hon.

Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). I find myself in rather extraordinary company; and I have, for that reason, examined the Amendment very carefully. Nevertheless, I find myself in favour of it. Clause 16 is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It does something which I think can be regarded as revolutionary. It confers extraordinary powers upon local authorities which they have never had before, and I imagine that my right hon. Friend must have been very fully satisfied that these powers were necessary before he incorporated them in the Bill.
Let me give the Committee an example from London. I have not quoted London before in the course of these discussions, but, some years ago, the London County Council obtained from this House a Measure for the purpose of redeveloping a portion of the South bank, the area between Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge. In pursuance of the powers conferred upon them, they acquired large areas of land in that district, and now have, I think, practically the whole of the area which they were empowered to acquire. But they were given no power to develop it. They therefore have this large area of land, and all that they can do with it is to put up working class houses. It does not happen to be a convenient or suitable area for the erection of working class houses. The Council have made up their minds how the area should be developed, and now they are waiting for private enterprise to come along and build in accordance with the plan they have made. Naturally, private enterprise will not come along unless they can see a profit.
Among the things which the Council desire is to make a portion of the South bank into a cultural centre, and to use part of it for the erection of a theatre and a youth centre, but, so far, nobody has come along prepared to build in accordance with that plan, and until these powers are conferred upon the local authority it will be impossible for the London County Council to make that vital improvement or to grant a developer the power he ought to have. It is for that reason that these powers have been conferred, and local authorities throughout the country generally were extremely grateful to the Minister for having given them these powers. Might I say that it is


a courageous step on his part, knowing the kind of opposition he would probably have to face in giving these powers?
But, having done that, he proceeds first of all to turn it down. These powers must not be used without his consent. I do not so much mind that, although I do not see the reason for it. If my right hon. Friend can trust the local authorities to carry out large-scale development, he can surely trust them to carry out these powers wisely but, under Sub-section (2), whenever the local authority has a scheme for carrying out a development in accordance with the Sub-section, or by using the powers under Sub-section (1), they come along to the Minister for his approval and he gives it. I should have been content that the Minister should have wide powers in granting the applications of the local authorities or in rejecting them. But what does he do in the next Sub-section? He deliberately limits himself so that he can only exercise the power in one way, and can only give this consent if no one can be found to carry out this development in the manner and at the time which he says. What he has conferred on the local authorities with one hand, he has completely taken away with the other.
He has recognised that position himself and has recognised that he has gone too far, because he has put down an Amendment, and I submit that this Amendment does not go appreciably further than the original Sub-section (3). As I read it, and I am quite willing for the Minister to tell me I am wrong, it presupposes that he has already given approval for some initial development, and then he says he will allow the local authority to go on if it is necessary that they should do so for the purpose of balancing expenditure.
I want to say two things on that. Firstly, he will not he in a position even to permit the initial expenditure to which he refers in his Amendment if somebody else can be found to undertake it, and, therefore, he is begging the question completely. Even if he is able to find someone who will carry out the initial expenditure, the local authority is then out of the picture, and he has given them nothing. Secondly, supposing the local authority has been permitted to carry out the initial stages of the development, and supposing they want to carry out some-

thing which will not enable them to balance expenditure—say, to put up this theatre—the Minister will say, "No, you cannot do it under the terms of this Amendment, because you are not doing it to enable you to balance expenditure." I have used the instance of the theatre because it is, probably, the worst case against myself.
Therefore, I think this Amendment will give nothing to the local authorities, who are left in the same position as they were under the original Sub-section, and I would have much preferred to have left out Sub-section (3) and given the Minister power to say "Yes" or "No," leaving him to take all factors into consideration, not only the cost and whether somebody else should do the work or not, but whether it is proper for a local authority to carry out work of this kind or not. I would have given him the widest possible discretion, but, having given it, I would have cut out Sub-section (3) altogether.
If the Minister prefers to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edgbaston, I do not mind. It permits local authorities to farm out some of this redevelopment, if they wish, with the consent of the Minister, and that will be quite satisfactory to the local authorities, but I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to this Clause. In my view, it is really the kernel of the whole Bill, because all this acquisition of land is for the purpose of redevelopment. In the end, the land is required for redevelopment, and this Clause deals with redevelopment, and, unless this Clause is right, then, in my view, the whole purpose of the Bill has been frustrated. I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to what has 'been said, and, if possible, he will cut out Sub-section (3) altogether.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with may hon. Friend opposite, with whom I usually agree in supporting Ministers. I would suggest that a question of political philosophy comes very effectively into this matter, and here, almost for the first time since I came to the House, I am in complete disagreement with my hon. Friend opposite. The object of this Bill is to confer on local authorities powers to build, and, plainly, to see that the future planning of England is carried out in a proper way.
As between public and private building, as Tories we must naturally support private building because we are in favour of private enterprise, but there is no reason why this question should arise on this or any other Clause. All that this Sub-section does, as I pointed out before in connection with another Sub-section, is to give power to the Minister to consider which is the right authority to develop a plan. [An HON. MEMBER: "No it does not."]—It does. It says:
The Minister shall not give his consent for the purposes of the last preceding Subsection as respects any operation if it appears to him that a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry it out.
I said on a previous Amendment that all the Minister has to decide when he sees a piece of land which has not been developed by the local authority is whether he believes a private individual can develop it and, therefore, he refuses his consent because he believes the private individual can carry the matter out effectively. If we were concerned solely with the question of public and private enterprise and not with the question, of planning, we would not have brought the Bill forward. We would not have had this Government in existence because it is a Coalition Government.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot, obviously, argue the value of a Coalition Government on every Amendment. I realise that the Amendments we are discussing are really at the heart of the Clause, but I hope that on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we shall not have a repetition of this discussion.

Earl Winterton: I used an unusual phrase. I could not agree more with your Ruling, Mr. Williams, and I apologise for having got outside the ambit of the Clause, especially as the matter has been discussed on other Clauses. I would suggest that in this, as in all other matters, we must have regard to the most efficient method of planning. I hope that we shall get out of the habit of thinking that the local authorities and associations of local authorities are necessarily right, and that hon. Members, who like myself are supporting the Government, will not get into the habit, as Tories, of saying that it should be taken out of the hands of this

House to say whether it is right or not. This gives power to the House of Commons to question the action of the Minister, whereas the whole trend—whether Socialist or Tory—is that local authorities must always be trusted in matters that affect the public and that the right should not be given to Parliament.

Mr. Hynd: The safeguard here is to ensure that, where the Minister is satisfied that a private individual can do the work more expeditiously than the local authority, he should be in a position to withhold authority.

Earl Winterton: All this Clause does—and I am sure that the Minister will agree—is to carry out planning in the most efficient way possible and to take out of the hands of local authorities power of decision if they are not exercising the intentions of the Bill.

Mr. Wilmot: I think that if the Noble Lord will look at Sub-section (3) again he will see that the Minister has not given any discretion nor is he permitted to make his decision as to which is the most efficient and effective way to carry out the project. He is bound by the Sub-section—and this is the reason for our objection to it—not to allow the local authority to carry out the project if any other person is willing and can carry it out. He does not say anything about efficient or proper development.

4.45 p.m.

Major Woolley: Surely the other person must carry it out
in such manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose for which it is needed.
That is the qualification of the person to whom the matter is transferred.

Mr. Wilmot: It is all right for the Noble Lord to repeat any sentence he may like to find, but it does not say that. It says that the Minister shall not give consent
if it appears to him that a person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry it out at such time and in such manner as may be requisite for meeting, etc.
Surely that is a desirable limitation to put on the Minister's discretion in exercising his consent to the powers which have been, for reasons which we all understand, conferred in certain circumstances. I ask the Noble Lord to consider where he is going. I have always looked upon him


as one who can be relied upon to support a project for ennobling our towns and preserving our countryside. That ought to be the test. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has spoken about a certain specific development on the South bank of the Thames, surely long overdue. The squalor of the South bank is a disgrace to the landowning system of this capital city. It is to the credit of the L.C.C., whatever its political colour, that it has taken the initiative in developing the South bank, which may be a noble part of our incomparable river scenery. Is the Minister going to be tied and to hold up that development if anybody else thinks they can show a reason that they can do it as well as the London County Council? We want to see the heart and hub of our stricken cities developed upon nobler and better lines than many of them were before. That is an objective which really ought to be freed from a rather squalid scramble between public and private enterprise. The essential thing is to get a noble development which will be an immemorial tribute to those who have fought in this war. That is how we see it.
The Minister ought certainly to be free to allow this development, if it is going to be well developed, to be done as a specific job carried out, it may be, by the public authorities. Those who have private enterprises and private interests in the City will all benefit by what is being done in this piece of specific development. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman put down as intended to meet the feelings of local authorities in this matter, does not go far enough. It limits the Minister's limiting powers to those cases where expenditure has already been incurred on that particular project. Where the local authority is the developing authority—and let us not forget in many places nobody else will be able and willing to do development—the planning authority will be the only one who will do it, if it has to be done at all. They may be hard-pressed financially, and it may be necessary for them to seek to recoup some of the expenditure involved in development on, say, a civic centre by some remunerative development in other parts of their area. It would be quite wrong, and I do not think the Minister would have the power under this Amendment, to take notice of that fact because

it would not be a financial commitment which they had already undertaken in respect of that particular project, but without the revenues flowing from some other part of the development they would not be able to afford to do the civic development, let us say, in the centre. So I think it would be best if this Sub-section, which is really quite unnecessary, were deleted. Already the Minister's consent has to be obtained under the two previous Sub-sections, Every safeguard is given against abuse by the planning authority of these new powers. Every time they have to go to my right hon. Friend and get his consent. Why cannot we leave it at that? The only purpose of Sub-section (3) is to tie the Minister's hands, and I ask him to drop this Sub-section, or, if he cannot do that, to accept the very wise Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett).

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure none of us want this discussion to enlarge itself into a full-blown wrangle about private versus public enterprise. What we are concerned with is how best to enlist all the energies of public and private enterprise in the great task of rebuilding. In the past it is common knowledge that public and private enterprise have not always been easy bed-fellows. There exists, let us face it, a good deal of suspicion among those who believe in private enterprise which prevents them from consenting readily to any great extension of enterprise founded upon public money, whether it be the rates or taxes. I should dislike it very much if our proposals for reconstruction were to be marred by any such feeling. I would like both public and private enterprise to play their full part, and it is for that reason that the great change made by this Clause—the extent and magnitude of which ought not to be minimised—ought to be brought to the attention of the Committee. In addition to such statutory powers as local authorities already possess for certain narrowly-defined public purposes, Subsection (1) of this Clause removes all disabilities whatsoever from local authorities in developing the land of which they obtain possession.
Do not let us fog ourselves with words. What do we mean by development? We mean building. In other words, this Clause enables, for the first time in his-


tory, a local authority to go in for building in a large way. I justify that up to the hilt because, as I say, we shall need in the stages of reconstruction through which we pass, the full help of public enterprise in certain cases, and the Clause as drafted is designed to secure that, in its proper place, public enterprise comes in and, in its proper place, private enterprise comes in. I do not want, while removing the swaddling bands that have hitherto wrapped round and hampered public authorities, at the same time to take a step which would make them, as it were, competitors in the building trade with private interests, founding themselves upon capital raised from ratepayers' money. That is the issue, and the Clause is drafted for that purpose. I want to proceed in this matter in order to get harmony between the two.
The cases that have been urged in favour of public enterprise by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and others would be met under this Bill as it stands, because it follows inexorably from what has been said about these projects that I should not have been satisfied under Sub-section (3) that a person other than a local planning authority was able and willing to carry it out at such time and manner as may be requisite for meeting the purpose. Note that, time and manner. I think that the fear expressed that I am unduly tied up by these words is wrong. In the task of reconstruction, time will be of vital importance and before I could, under this Clause, rightly forbid a public enterprise I would have to be satisfied that there was someone able and willing to carry out the enterprise not only in the manner desired but quickly enough. So I think that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will see, when they consider this Clause, that it enables full use to be made of public enterprise in the task of reconstruction, but, at the same time, lays it down that in proper cases where private enterprise can contribute, it should not be frozen out but should get its place in the team.
These are the considerations which have led to the drafting of the Bill. The hon. Member for Peckham spoke of a theatre which he said no one would build except by public enterprise. His definition of the case brings it outside the ban imposed by the Sub-section.

Mr. Wilmot: What about a municipal garage?

Mr. Morrison: So, I think, would a municipal garage. If an authority wanted a municipal garage and no one was able to build it in the manner desired and quickly enough for them, they would be outside Sub-section (3), but if, on the other hand, there was a local builder who was perfectly competent and capable, both financially and by his skill, to make the garage that the local authorities required, and could do it quickly enough, why should he not do it? It is a difficult task to marry these two things in a harmonious way, but if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise that both have to play their part in this task, they will see that the Clause as drafted does fill the bill.

Mr. Wilmot: May I ask a question on the example given by the right hon. Gentleman? If the builder is able and willing in the time and manner required to make the garage, it will not be a municipal garage, and the desire to have a municipal garage will have been defeated.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that, if a municipality want the garage, they can obviously hire a private enterprise builder to build it, and therefore the two things are not the same at all. The question is, would the right hon. Gentleman bar that municipal authority ordering a municipal garage to be built?

Mr. Morrison: Let us not be confused about this. When my hon. Friend asked me about a municipal garage, I thought he was referring to a garage owned by a municipality for the benefit of its ratepayers. Is that right?

Mr. Wilmot: It might be built by private enterprise.

Mr. Morrison: It might easily be built by private enterprise, and it can be; but suppose it were essential to the life of the community that a municipal garage should be put up by a certain date and built according to a certain specification. It might have underground parks, lifts of various sorts and sizes. Suppose that were an essential part of the reconstruction scheme, and the local authority owning the land wanted to have it built, and no private builder was forthcoming or


would do it in the time. Then the Clause would enable the local authority to come forward—

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: May I ask my right hon Friend if he will keep the two matters distinct? The question he is discussing now is, who is going to build? We are concerned in this Clause with land which already belongs to the local authority and on which the local authority wants to build for itself, through an outside builder it may be, a municipal garage and wants to own the building. That is the very step which is prevented by this Clause.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: Not in the least. First of all I have to settle under Sub-section (2) whether this particular piece of development is necessary. I have to give my consent before the local planning authority can go ahead to build that garage.
But I am assuming that I have decided that the plan for the garage is essential, and that they should go ahead. The local authority, in the normal event, would ask the private builder to build the garage for them. What is in mind is this: Imagine an area that has to be reconstructed, and which is now lying flat. It is local authority land, and it is cleared. If the plan is to proceed by progressive and good stages there must be a row of shops in a certain place. Private enterprise, on viewing the prospects of the whole thing, does not think they are very good. [An HON. MEMBER: "No profits."]I can see nothing wrong with people wanting to make a profit. Because the plan would be lacking in something essential to the life of the community the local authority would be entitled to initiate the project direct, having obtained consent. The local authority says: "We come in and build the first row of shops." It is a loss at the start, because there are so few houses which, of course, means few customers. The local authority then says: "We will stand the loss." When more houses are built, and there are more customers, private enterprise will come along and build shops because it is an attractive proposition. The local authority will say, "You forced us to undertake early work at a loss and you will not allow us to build enough shops to recoup ourselves and the ratepayers for the expenditure which we have incurred."
I think that claim is justified, and that is the purpose of my Amendment, which I have not yet moved. If they can show that they have properly initiated this undertaking they should be permitted to carry it to such a degree as will balance their expenditure. If hon. Members will look at the Clause again a little more sympathetically they will realise that its sole purpose is to eradicate delay, whether by public or private enterprise, and bring them together without quarrelling with each other and getting in each other's way. Let them go forward together in this spirit, and then we shall see our cities rising again.

Mr. Wilmot: Will the Minister say whether his Amendment would cover the case I mentioned, where expenditure has been incurred on one project with the intention of recouping some part of the loss on another project? Would he sanction the second project as being part of the necessary balancing factor of the whole thing?

Mr. Morrison: The idea is to allow public enterprise to continue until it is on a self-balancing basis. The words used by my hon. Friend might be capable of another meaning, and I think I had better look at them and consider them before I agree. I have not referred to my hon. Friend's Amendment, the effect of which is that I would not be bound to refuse consent to a local authority development, even if somebody else was willing to do it. That would be the effect. The words he wishes to insert will empower the local authority to make arrangements with a person capable of carrying out the development, which they can do already under the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: The Minister has engendered a little political heat into the discussion on this Amendment but I would prefer to consider it, as I find myself in the somewhat unaccustomed company of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), from a purely business point of view. I saw, the other day, a project for the post-war development of a town which comprised within it the intention of moving a large part of the population, and particularly some of its old manufacturing sites and works, from the old city to adjoining satellite towns. Now we will all agree that it is not desirable that in the new towns to be set up there should be the


old types of dingy, backyard, ill-conditioned, badly-ventilated, grimy, small factories. New development contemplates that in future there shall be contained within the plan unit construction factories that are modern, well-ventilated, well-lit, complete with all services, and capable of being let in different sizes to concerns which may want to go to the site, particularly to smaller types of businesses. The large concerns may look after themselves. This project is one which will particularly encourage the small man and will help him. Under this Clause as it is the planning authority, having obtained, first of all, the approval of the Ministry to acquire land for its project, says, "As part of the plan of the whole we desire to erect these unit factories in different places in some of the satellite areas." In one satellite town the local authority may have to wait 10 to 15 years before they have enticed such activities there, while in another town the factories may be occupied in a few years. In another, intending occupants will be tumbling over each other to get them. I have studied the Clause with care and, as I read it, the Minister will have to consider each and every one of these and find out first of all whether he is ready to give his consent for the project to go forward under Sub-section (2). Is it then in accordance with the undertaking that he has already given, if he thinks it right, that public notice should be given?
The Minister then advertises that the City of X is proposing to build up these lettable unit factories in satellites A, B and C. What happens the next morning? Satellite C is the one every one will go for. They will see that an immediate profit is to be got. A person who wants to build there will say to the Minister, "I am prepared to build entirely in accordance with the plan. I am prepared to put up the building exactly to the design wanted to fit in with it." The Minister under this Sub-section is bound to say—the terms are mandatory—" There is some one here willing to do it. The local authority shall not proceed with the project. That must be handed over to private enterprise." What about satellites A and B, where there will have to be some time to wait before the small industries will go there? The local authority says, "You have deprived us of the opportunity of taking an immediate profit by

putting a unit factory in satellite C, therefore we apply for permission to go on putting up factories in satellites A and B." There are no offers from outside. No one can see any profit in this for five or ten years, so the local authority is allowed, as the Clause now is, to build there itself and to own them and let them for this purpose. I challenge the Minister to find any flaw in that example of the effect of the Clause. It is a perfect example of what could happen and a perfect example of handing over to the local authority the bad business and sending the good away. It is for that reason that we feel so strongly about this Subsection. I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) in accepting Sub-section (2) but, if there must be some check, the Minister is given a number of powers of discretion and let him have it in this regard. So much for the Clause as it stands. I am for the deletion of the Subsection.
5.15 P.m.
Now may I say a word about the Minister's suggested Amendment, which in my submission does not assist in the slightest degree. He is bound to refuse to allow the local planning authority to proceed with the project if he is satisfied that anyone else is able and willing to do it. He is prepared to qualify this in the terms of the proposed Amendment. The terms of the Amendment are that it shall only apply in the case of subsequent operations. Therefore the suggestion is that for all time the initial operation shall never have the advantage in competition with private enterprise. The second limiting condition is that the local authority must have incurred expenditure upon it. I find a little difficulty in seeing what particular purpose is served by that, because a local authority is bound to incur some expenditure in initiating any project or putting forward any proposal. So that that means nothing. Even writing a letter to the Minister giving notice of the original plan is incurring a certain amount of expenditure. So that middle part of the Amendment is meaningless. The third is again limiting. If the initial project and the subsequent operations are meant to produce a balance of expenditure, the Minister may withhold his disapproval. But why should this proposed Amendment cut down the Minister's power to


give permission only in cases where the accounts will balance? The same thing inspires the Amendment as inspired the original Sub-section. Here the Minister proposes to say the local authority may in respect of this project get back as much as it has paid out, but never shall it have a penny more. On grounds of good business it seems to me improper that such a limitation should be allowed to remain in the Bill and I propose to divide against it.

Mr. A. Bevan: I am a little puzzled by the words "construction" and "operation." Do they mean two distinct things or do they mean the same thing? If the local authority is prepared to construct a row of shops, that would be construction and it would be permitted. If later on, after the scheme has been developed, there is a considerable population ready to patronise the shops, the local authority will be stopped from operating them if other persons come forward and rent them and operate them.

Mr. Morrison: Normally, except for the change proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: There are two distinct things. There is construction and there is operation. Let us deal with construction first. Does not the limitation imposed in the Bill prevent the local authority from constructing anything at all? Before they can undertake the work of constructing buildings on any scale in any modern scheme, they have to have very expensive apparatus. They might merely construct the part which is immediately necessary and leave private enterprise to construct another part. Anyone who has had any experience of house building knows that the building material and apparatus necessary for constructing buildings on any scale are in the hands of a few large corporations. I do not want to mention their names, but they are active inside the House of Commons and outside. In practice, if the local authority were confined to certain constructional operations, they would have to carry them out on a frightfully expensive scale, because the overheads and the machinery necessary would be costed only to the limited scheme, whereas constructional companies, having much larger constructions to carry out, would be able to carry their overheads on many other

operations. One appreciates, of course, that the municipality might employ them to carry the work out, but they might not be available to do the work. The market we are thinking about after the war will be a seller's market—

The Deputy-Chairman: This has been a very wide and full discussion, and if we are going to discuss whether it will be a buyer's or seller's market after the war it will be getting beyond the limits.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, I think it was very germane to the point. If a local authority is to be put in the position that is contemplated by the Bill, in which anybody is able to come forward and to say to the Minister, "We can carry out this work," where is the protection of the local authority against the seller's market being exploited against them? There will be no competitive tenders.

The Deputy-Chairman: The question whether there will be a seller's market is a matter of opinion and goes beyond this Clause. The discussion has been very wide, and we ought not to widen it further by discussing whether the post-war market will be a seller's or a buyer's market.

Mr. Bevan: We are resisting the Minister imposing upon himself the obligation of allowing any person to carry out this work if such a person can be found in the area. The local authorities will be put under grave disabilities because, instead of having a situation in which a number of persons will send in tenders, they will have a position in which only one or two people will send them in. The Minister will have to prevent the local authority from carrying out the work because there are one or two persons in that favoured position available. The circumstances I would envisage are these. Suppose Swansea Corporation wants to construct a theatre in accordance with its plan and the Minister has agreed that a theatre ought to be erected in that place. Cardiff is also putting up a large number of buildings at the same time, and the same thing is happening all over the West of England. The number of persons available for building theatres is very limited. The Swansea Corporation say to the Minister, "We want to build a theatre," but a constructional engineer in the district knows that the Minister is


bound to prevent the corporation doing it if he comes forward and says that he will build it. What restriction will be placed on him as to the price he is to charge for the theatre? He is the only fellow there and he has got the Corporation by the throat. He has the Minister by the throat, too. There is nothing about price in the Bill, and the Minister is estopped from allowing the local authority to build if someone else is available to build it. Is not this a set of circumstances which hands over construction to the most wicked exploitation by persons enjoying a favoured market? It would be bad enough in normal conditions, but it will be extremely onerous in the immediate post-war world if individuals are to be placed by legislation in this favoured position. Therefore, there ought to be a little more direction for the local authorities than is indicated.
What about operation? It is often difficult for local authorities to operate a number of businesses unless the number is sufficiently large to enable their overheads to be kept down. If local authorities are going to operate only one or two shops or a garage, in anticipation of the development of the area and private enterprise coming along later to develop it, the local authority will have to keep a department and a costing system for a number of enterprises too small to cover the necessary administrative overheads. If the local authority has to run one shop, the costings on that shop will be much worse than if they run four or five. If that is not accepted, any multiple firm will give information on the point. A family grocery is all right in certain circumstances, but the local authority cannot run a family grocery. It has to run an establishment of some considerable scale if it is to do the job economically. Therefore, I suggest it would be much the best thing if the local authority were allowed to compete and tender against the private market in this matter. The Minister would have adequate protection under general law to prevent a local authority from accepting tenders which were unreasonable in the circumstances. I hope that if the Minister insists on these powers the Committee will resist him.

Mr. David Eccles: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) spoke

about a municipal garage, but I understand that that could not be operated by the local authority. Under Clause 16 power is given to erect any building or works, but there is nothing about operating the garage or making a profit out of the operation. Can the Minister tell me whether a local authority is empowered to say, "There was a petrol filling station in this blitzed area and we shall have to put one back, and we desire both to build it ourselves and to operate it"? Is it possible for the local authority to do that and for the Minister to consent or not consent to the operation of the garage?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Under the Clause a local authority could work a filling station, assuming it were part of the plan assented to by me, only if it had statutory powers to do so. It would have to lease it to somebody who would run it.

Mr. Wilmot: Could they take the fees for parking cars?

Mr. Morrison: Not under this Clause, but they would probably have power to do that under other legislation. Under this Clause, if there is no power in the legislation already appertaining to the local authority to erect certain buildings and nobody else is willing to do it, and I consent to their doing it, they can construct the buildings and lease them to somebody else to operate them.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas: I am sure that the Minister, in inserting this provision in the Bill, honestly intended that it should be workable and useful. I want to enlighten him as to the difficulties which will arise if Sub-section (3) remains in the Clause or if his own Amendment to the Clause is carried. Let me point out first that the Minister has to be satisfied that there is someone able and willing to carry out the proposed development which the local authority has submitted to him. Only yesterday, in resisting another Amendment, the Minister told the Committee that those words presented extreme difficulty. He said:
I also feel that the words 'willing and able,' if they were allowed to remain in the Bill, might in future give rise to great questions of fact which it would be impossible ever adequately to resolve. Though it might be possible to say whether a man is willing, how could one guess or estimate his ability to carry out a long-term project of this character?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th October, 1944: Vol. 403, c. 966.]


The difficulty in this case is doubly great, because the Clause deals with the land which is already in the ownership of the local authority. How can anybody say on what terms or conditions the local authority would be willing to lease or to sell that land to anybody else who wanted to develop it? Unless the Minister knows the terms upon which the local authority is prepared to dispose of that land, he cannot possibly say whether some private person outside is either able or willing to carry out the project which the local authority is suggesting. Therefore there is an inherent impossibility in Subsection (3).
I suggest to the Minister that he has already in Sub-section (2) an absolute power, without any appeal whatsoever, to veto any project which the local authority puts before him under the Clause. I suggest that there is nothing more that he ought to ask and that he certainly should not ask for a power which is incapable of effective operation because it cannot be interpreted, and which is bound to lead to disputes between him and the local authorities. Those disputes will be increased and intensified if the Amendment which the Minister has put down to Sub-section (3) is carried. That involves further hypotheses about what is to happen. It involves that the Minister has to consider the expenditure which has already been incurred by the local authority, that he has to consider the expenditure which they might incur in the future, and that he has to form an estimate of whether the undertaking will be profitable or not. How is he to tell what rents the local authority will get for a garage, if it builds one, or for a theatre, if it builds one? There are bound to be disputes under this provision. It will be impossible for the Minister ever to give a decision which will be of a clear-cut nature and which will indicate without any question what are the grounds upon which his decision was arrived at.
More than that; this Amendment which the Minister is putting down will have the result in every case of impelling the local authority, when it has a reasonable project in front of it, to present it in such a fashion as to try to frustrate the Minister. Therefore it will cut it into portions, and it will present to the Minister the portion which is clearly uneconomical and which

no one would undertake. Thereby, the local authority will gain his permission. Subsequently, it will come along with the rest of the proposal which it has in mind and it will say: "This is necessary for the purpose of making economic what we have already done." Therefore, by this Amendment, the Minister is deliberately forcing the local authorities into taking a course of action which he should not encourage. Therefore I do beg him to consent to Sub-section (3) being deleted. It would be an improvement if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) were adopted, because it would give wider flexibility to the operation of the Clause. In any case, it is essential for Sub-section (3) to be deleted if the Clause is to be effective and to be honestly operated.

Mr. A. Bevan: I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question. Suppose a local authority submits a scheme to the Minister and says: "We are prepared to construct these buildings ourselves." Suppose—to use the name of a well-known firm—that Messrs. MacAlpine come forward and says to the Minister: "We are prepared to construct these buildings," and that nobody else comes forward and makes a similar offer. If the Sub-section is carried, will the Minister be bound to force the local authority to accept the MacAlpine contract?

The Attorney-General: Of course, one would have to look at all the circumstances, but it is clear that the Clause does not depend upon more than one person coming forward. The Minister has to satisfy himself that that person is able and willing to carry out the work in such time and manner as may be requisite.

Mr. Bevan: There is nothing at all in the Sub-section about price. In point of fact, what the Committee are being asked to consider is to confer upon a building monopoly absolute control over the prices they may charge for the carrying out of the work.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought the words were wide enough, if the man was asking obviously an exorbitant price, to enable the Minister to-say "No."

Mr. Bevan: By what test?

The Attorney-General: By the test of what is reasonable.

Mr. Bevan: This is an extremely important point. By what test is the Minister to determine whether the contract price by MacAlpine is reasonable or not? The local authority have not tendered. They cannot tender in the circumstances, because the Minister is prevented from allowing them to do the job. In point of fact, if there is one person, in such circumstances, subjected to no test as to costs, with no competitive tendering restricting their greed and with no protection for the public interests, the Minister is bound to accept the contract of a monopolistic and private concern. I understand from the Attorney-General that that is the position.

The Attorney-General: I would not agree with that suggestion. It is based upon an assumption which is rather hypothetical. I would not admit for a moment that if there is only one tender it is not possible to get expert advice as to whether the price is reasonable.

Mr. Bevan: I am sorry, but I still persist in pressing this point. I fear that when the Committee reviews to-morrow what it has done to-day—if it passes this Sub-section—there will foe a great hue and cry here and throughout the country,

because Parliament cannot confer legislative protection of this sort upon private people outside. If it is contemplated that these powers are to be exercised, there must be provision in the Bill by which the public authority can be protected from those circumstances being exploited. No Conservative Member of this Committee sitting as a councillor would accept conditions of that sort.

The Attorney-General: I think it is an important point, and my right hon. Friend will certainly look into it. We certainly read the Sub-section as entitling the Minister to consider whether the price put forward is reasonable, because it would be ridiculous if one firm put forward an unreasonable price and that precluded the Minister from withholding his consent. My right hon. Friend is certainly willing to look into the words, and if it is necessary to put in words which clearly entitle him to look at the price put forward, he will do so.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 46.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[5.45 p.m.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)
Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ellis, Sir G.
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Elliston, Captain Sir G.S.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)


Beech, Major F. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Beechman, N. A.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Mathers, G.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gates, Major E. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J


Blair, Sir R.
Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Goldie, N. B.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Brabner, Comdr. R. A.
Gretton, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Braithwaite, Major A. N (Buckrose)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'dern's)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Nunn, W.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Petherick, M.


Bull, B. B.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Channon, H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Pym, L. R.


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Holy-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Colegate, W. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Rose Taylor, W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Critchley, A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Cundiff, F. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Snadden, W. McN.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
John, W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Drewe, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Levy, T.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gton, N.)
Lipson, D. L.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Major H. G.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Suirdale, Viscount




Summers, G. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E.A. (P'd'ton, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)



Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.
Captain McEwen and


Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Major Buchan-Hepburn.




NOES.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Horabin, T. L.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hubbard, T. F.
Sloan, A.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Stephen, C.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stokes, R. R.


Chater, D.
Key, C. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Loverseed, J. E.
Tinker, J. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Ma[...]k, J. D.
Wilmot, John


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Windsor, W.


Dunn, E.
Manning, C. A. G.
Woodburn, A.


Foster, W.
Messer, F
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.



Glanville, J. E.
Neal, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Silkin and Mr. Hynd.


Guy, W. H.




Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 22, line 46, at end, insert:
Provided that the limitation imposed by this Sub-section shall not have effect in the case of subsequent operations forming part of a project for the initiation of which the authority have incurred expenditure if those operations ought in the opinion of the Minister to be carried out by them in order to enable them to balance their expenditure in connection with the project as a whole."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 18.—(Authorisation of development on land acquired for purposes of this Part notwithstanding interference with easements, etc.)

Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 23, line 30, after "servitude," to insert:
(not being an easement or servitude held for the purpose of the carrying on of a statutory undertaking).
This is really only a drafting Amendment. It may be necessary to extinguish the servitude and easements earned by statutory undertakings; but, as I understand it, Clause 21 lays down complete machinery for dealing with extinction of that kind. It, therefore, seems unnecessary that statutory undertakers should be included in this Clause. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that their rights in this respect will not be interfered with, and that any extinction of the servitude and easement will be dealt with under Clause 21, and not under this Clause.

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment. If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, he said that it is a drafting Amendment; but I understand it to be something very much more than a drafting Amendment. In fact, most land that the local authorities will want to develop, upon will be the subject of easements. This Clause is intended to authorise local authorities to develop on land which is acquired for reconstruction purposes, and to interfere in spite of any easements which exist on he land. Most of the easements will be easements of which statutory undertakers will have the benefit. If statutory undertakers are excluded, there will be very little left.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I said that provision is made in Clause 21 for extinguishing these easements, if necessary. If there is complete machinery in Clause 21, the rights of statutory undertakers should be retained under this Clause. They may want access to sub-surface working, although there is a development scheme in operation.

Mr. Silkin: Clause 21 deals with quite a different subject. Clause 18 is the Clause which enables local authorities to build on land which may be the subject of easements. Clause 21 deals with the extinction of easements, which is quite a different question. I submit that if this Amendment were accepted, it would make the whole Measure inoperative, because statutory undertakings are mostly the bodies which enjoy these easements. If they were exempt under Clause 18, there


would be very little land of which local authorities came into possession which they could develop. Moreover, this Clause provides for compensation for statutory undertakers and others, and, therefore, they are not injured in any way.

Sir H. Williams: We ought to be careful about this matter. Statutory undertakers are not limited to private enterprise. Both the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and I happen to be members of the London County Council. That council may be getting very busy under Clause 18, and may do something about which the Poplar Borough Council, which owns an electricity undertaking, may be quite cross. Buried under the streets of our towns are many thousands of pounds' worth of very important capital, including mains carrying gas, electricity and water, and the mains of the Postmaster-General, who is quite exempt from this. The Crown seems always to be exempt in these cases. We must be careful that, in re-planning, we do not cause the greatest possible disturbance to the continuous carrying on of public utilities, whoever owns them. This is not an issue between a public interest and a private interest: it may be an issue between one public interest and another. I am not a lawyer, and I am always doubtful what the word "easement" means: it is, so far as I can make out, something that I have not got. But it is something of the greatest possible significance, and you cannot just ride roughshod over these rights. There are easements which supply this House with electricity. I remember that one day a gentleman with a pickaxe drove it into a main somewhere near the Embankment, and for a time we had candles on the Table; until we thought that that was not good enough, and adjourned. Somebody cut an easement in half with a pickaxe. We really have to be careful about these things.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I do not think that the difference between my two hon. Friends the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) is as great as it appears to be. As I understand the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge, he wants to be quite clear about the ground covered by Clause 18 and the ground covered by Clause 21. The position, at the moment,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, is that Clause 18 enables development to be carried out even if it interferes with the easements on the land on which the development is carried out, and provides for compensation for injurious affection. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge had in mind is that, in Clause 21, we are dealing with rights of way and maintenance of apparatus of statutory undertakers, for which a special code of compensation is provided. I think it would meet the point of my hon. Friend if we looked into the matter to see that the rights of way and maintenance of apparatus are protected, wherever they are; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge has brought this point up and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has shown the limitation which he wants, I will certainly look into the matter, to find words to meet both points of view, having made clear the difference which we all want to maintain. In that case, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the point at the moment, and I will look into the exact words to see if the point can be covered.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, to leave out from "compensation," to end of Sub-section, and insert:
under Section sixty-three or sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to be assessed in the same manner and subject to the same rules as in the case of other compensation under those Sections in respect of injurious affection where the compensation is to be estimated in connection with a purchase by such an authority or the injury arises from the execution of works on land acquired by such an authority.
This is a drafting Amendment. The words on which the Amendment operates are words dealing with compensation for injurious affection. The roots of that compensation are in Section 63 or Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Act, and the later words of the Amendment make it clear that compensation under that Act will be subject to any special compensation provisions of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 5, to leave out from "that," to end of line 25, and to insert:


for the purpose of this Sub-section anything done by an interim development authority or by the authority responsible for the enforcement of any provisions of a planning scheme shall, if done in accordance with consent granted under the provisions of this Act relating to the control of development by such authorities, or, in a case where such consent is dispensed with under those provisions, without such consent, be treated as done in accordance with the terms of permission granted under the interim development order or, as the case may be, as done in conformity with the provisions of the scheme.
This is a drafting Amendment, preparing the way for a new Clause which appears on the Order Paper. Clause 18, as drafted, assumes that there is no planning control over the operations of interim development authorities, and a new Clause will provide that that control shall be established.

Sir H. Williams: What is the meaning of the words "interim development authority"? The expression seems to arise from the Act passed two years ago. Would my right hon. Friend tell us what it means?

Mr. Morrison: It does not arise from the Act passed last year, but from the Act of 1932, and my hon. Friend will find a definition on page 51, line 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: May I ask if the point of an Amendment—which was called when there was no one here to move it—is covered? Is a Government Department subject to the consent of the Minister? One feels there is considerable importance in this matter, because if a Government Department got outside the scheme, they might do very grave mischief.

Sir H. Williams: I was not here yesterday when the Minister made what seems to me a very strange statement. There was an Amendment proposing that the Minister should consult with the Minister of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend said it would be quite unconstitutional to impose on him the duty of consulting a colleague. That, frankly, surprised me. I took my mind back to the Import Duties Committee, when it was laid down that, if the Import Duties Advisory Committee presented a report, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of

Agriculture, according to whether it was an industrial article or item of agricultural produce, had to consult or agree with the Treasury before they laid a confirming order. Therefore, it is established procedure—which Parliament may have to lay down—that one Minister may have to consult another before he takes certain action. When my right hon. Friend said it was unconstitutional to do so, I was rather surprised. I was a little shocked when I read the report in "The Times."

Mr. Morrison: The constitutional difficulty is not that there is anything derogatory to the Minister of Town and Country Planning in being asked to consult his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The constitutional difficulty is that the theory is, and I hope always will be, that the Government speak with one voice and as one man in all Departments, and that, therefore, the consultation is presumed to have taken place.

Sir H. Williams: No, frequently it is the case that a Minister cannot do something without the approval of the Lords of the Treasury.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Douglas Thomson): I do not think that this is related to the Clause. It arises on an Amendment which was not moved.

Sir H. Williams: But it might have been, if it had been called.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question? Is the effect of Sub-section (4) that a Government Department could carry out works without reference to the proper planning authority, or has the approval of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to be given?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, the position is that, in all these cases, there is consultation between the Departments and my consent has to be obtained.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—{Power to extinguish highways over land acquired for purposes of this Part.)

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 24, line 41, after "Act," to insert:
on application being made to him by such an authority.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps it will be convenient to take this and the next Amendment together—In page 24, line 43, at end, insert:
an Order made under this Sub-section may contain such consequential, incidental and supplemental provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order.

Sir J. Lamb: This Clause gives power to extinguish highways over land acquired by the local authority. I believe I am speaking for all highway authorities when I say that we are opposed to the Minister having what is looked upon by these authorities as a roving commission, with regard to extinguishing highways. The closing of highways now is the duty of the local authority, and they do not see any reason why they should not continue to perform it. The local authorities are responsible for the requirements of the neighbourhood with regard to roads in their area, and plan construction of roads where required and not only for a particular area which is being planned. They are the authorities for supplying the necessities of the adjoining areas, because you cannot make roads in one area, without having regard for the needs of other areas around. They must also have full regard to traffic, and the type of traffic, which roads, when made, are likely to carry, or, if in existence, do carry. That being so, the first Amendment provides that that duty should remain with them, and that they should make application to the Minister. As regards the second Amendment, I admit that it is obviously desirable that the Minister should have power to make the order applied for by the local authority, and that he should have some details as to the administration and other items which may arise when he is considering the Order.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In reply to my hon. Friend, I think the Committee, on reflection, will agree that it is necessary for the Minister to have the power of extinguishing even if he very seldom uses it, and not to have that power dependent entirely upon some local body, which might not see the whole picture. I propose, in principle but not in words, to accept my hon. Friend's second Amendment, and I think he ought to be content with that, because it will mean that all objections of local authorities will be properly heard.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend will give us the principle underlying the argument which I put in my speech, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 45, after "section," to insert:
and specifying the time within which and the manner in which objections to the proposal may be made.
It is always desirable to let people know not only what their rights are, but how they should exercise them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, after "requisite," to insert:
and shall serve a like notice—

(a) on the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, except where that authority applied for the making of the order, and
(b) on any authority being the highway authority as respects tie right of way proposed to be extinguished, except where that authority applied for the making of the order."

I have moved the Amendment with the object of seeing that notice is given to the right authority. It may not always be the county council with whom the Minister may be dealing. It may be the rural district council, and we think that the county council, being the highway authority, and not the rural district council should have the notice.

Mr. Morrison: I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend improves the Bill and I propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, to leave out from "and," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
the provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the proposal if any objection thereto is duly made.
This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 25, line 20, to leave out from "shall," to end of line 21, and to insert "not be exercisable."
This Sub-section deals with the powers of the Postmaster-General where an order is made for a road to be closed on which there might be property belonging to the Postmaster-General consisting of telegraph poles and wires. This Department Seems to have the best of it both ways. An order could be made for the Postmaster-General to remove the poles and wires from a road and he would be paid for their removal, and he might also be required to erect new telegraph poles and wires on the new road and he would be paid for that also. It looks like a case of a penny with two heads, because the Postmaster-General wins both ways. There is nothing mentioned about salvage. What is to happen to the materials? This is a matter which should be considered and the local authority should have the advantage of any salvage.

6.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I am going to support my hon. Friend on this Amendment. This is a real example of vested interests. This is the Crown in the shape of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who at the moment is missing from the Chamber, and all his successors. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning can do all sorts of things, and then the Government come along and say that this will not apply to the Crown. It really is monstrous that the Crown should be put outside the law. Now that the Crown is a trader carrying on business in the ordinary way, why should there be these exemptions? Why should it not be placed in the same position as everybody else when acting as private trader? Here is a man who sells postage stamps, gives wrong numbers on the telephone and fails to deliver our telegrams. Owing to some monstrous judgment many years ago a telephone line is in the same category as a telegraph line, and that is the reason why no working man can afford to pay for the telephone. These monopolies want to be exempt from town and country planning. It is not good enough. I see that my right hon. and learned Friend has got all the lawyers here. They are apparently so frightened about the Amendment.

Captain Strickland: Would it be possible for the Minister, when he removes telegraph posts erected on existing roads and replaces the system some-

where else, to take precautions not to have the posts erected on public rights of way? They constitute a danger and inconvenience to pedestrians.

Mr. H. Strauss: Conversations are taking place between the representatives of local authorities concerned and the General Post Office, and that will be the best way of dealing with this matter. I can give an assurance that the matter will be further considered before the Report stage. I believe that it will content those who are undertaking these negotiations to have the right to raise the matter supposing that it has not been satisfactorily settled. I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to withdraw the Amendment and not to move the next Amendment on the Paper in his name—In page 25, line 22, leave out from "of," to "the," in line 27.

Captain Strickland: Can my hon. Friend make a statement with regard to trying to do away with telegraph poles altogether by putting the system underground?

Mr. Strauss: I would rather not say anything about that at short notice.

Earl Winterton: Presumably the Department will have regard to the aesthetic nature of the case. It would be undesirable in any replanning that the Post Office should have power to erect telegraph poles regardless of the landscape.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can assure my Noble Friend that the aesthetic aspect of the matter will be well borne in mind.

Sir J. Lamb: On the assurance that has been given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and to say that I do not propose to move my second Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—{Extinguishment of private ways, and rights as to apparatus, over or in land purchased for purposes of this Part.)

Sir J. Lamb: May I discuss the three Amendments standing in my name together, Sir Douglas?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes, I think we should discuss all three Amendments together.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 25, line 41, after "matters," to insert:
subject to any direction given by the purchasing authority before the completion of the purchase that this Section shall not apply to any right or apparatus specified in the direction and.
I would like to give an example of what would happen if the Clause is passed as drafted. A local authority might purchase land upon which there is a building containing machinery of a very valuable character to the present owners but not to anyone else, because it is machinery of a particularised character for an industry which will not be carried on by anyone else. Under the Clause as drafted the vendor of that property and machinery would be compensated on the full value personally to himself and not on the value to the person who is buying it. The authority might have to dispose of that machinery themselves, and it would therefore be possible for the man who had sold the machinery at a very fair value to himself to go into the market and re-purchase it at scrap value. The Amendments we have drawn up would obviate that.

Sir H. Williams: As I read the Clause, this might apply to the water supply to the factory. There may be a right of way to convey water from one place across the road to that factory. This is not just a case of the Postmaster-General's telegraph wires. It may be a sewer carrying an effluent from a factory, it may be a pipeline carrying water to a factory, it may be electricity mains carrying electricity from a private generating station which has nothing to do with the statutory undertaking. There are all sorts of items which have to be taken into account, and I hope the Minister will look into it very carefully, because a great many legitimate rights may be hampered by the Clause as it now stands.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I will certainly look into the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I gather that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) seeks to secure that the purchasing authority shall be enabled, before completing the purchase, to direct that the Clause shall not apply to any right or apparatus specified in the direction.

Sir J. Lamb: Yes.

Mr. Morrison: We think that is sensible. I propose to accept the Amendment, and the two following ones, which are consequential upon it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 42, after "made," insert:
(whether before or after the completion of the purchase.)

In line 45, leave out from "extinguishment," to "shall," in line 46, and insert:
of any right or the vesting of any apparatus under this Section."—(Sir J. Lamb.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 26, line 3, to leave out from "1919," to end of Sub-section and to insert:
and section forty-five of this Act shall have effect in relation to compensation payable under this section and to loss suffered as therein mentioned, as it has effect in relation to compensation in respect of land injuriously affected by the execution of works on land acquired by a Government Department or a local or public authority and to damage sustained by reason thereof.
This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the compensation provisions of this Bill apply to this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 21.—(Extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, to leave out from "imposed," to end of line 33, and to insert:
reasonable compensation for any damage sustained by him by reason of such extinguishment or imposition.
(9) Any question as to the right of a person carrying on a statutory undertaking to recover compensation under this section or as to the amount thereof shall, unless the authority or Minister concerned and the person carrying on the undertaking otherwise agree, be referred to and determined by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
Provided that—

(a) in assessing such compensation no regard shall be had to any decrease in the net receipts of the undertaking attributable to a reduction in the number of persons or properties served by the undertaking or to an alteration in the uses of land where such reduction or alteration arises out of action taken by the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, under this Part of this Act;


(b) there shall be set off against the amount of compensation otherwise payable any benefit accruing to the person carrying on the undertaking directly attributable to any adjustment of the carrying on of the undertaking rendered necessary by or resulting from the action of the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, giving rise to the claim for compensation."

This is a very complicated Amendment and I will do my very best to make it clear and simple. This Clause deals with the extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers. It permits a local authority to close a street or to require a statutory undertaker to cease erecting, continuing and maintaining any apparatus under the street or over it. In other words, it authorises the local authority to interfere to a certain extent with the apparatus of statutory undertakings, and it provides compensation to statutory undertakers in Sub-section (8) of the Clause as provided in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. The local authorities take the view that the compensation laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill is inappropriate to the purposes of this Clause, and they have set out an alternative method of paying compensation. That is the Amendment. I do not desire at this stage to argue the merits of the Amendment as against the Fourth Schedule, although I am prepared to do it if the Committee wish me to do so. In view of what I wish to say later, however, perhaps it will not be necessary.
6.30 p.m.
This interference with the rights of statutory undertakers is, of course, not a new thing. It arises frequently in connection with housing operations, and in the Housing Act of 1936 the method of assessing compensation has been laid down. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General, when giving a reply, can explain why the methods adopted in the Housing Act have not been provided in this case. In other cases, particularly in the case of private improvement Acts, there is always a specific provision as to the method of compensating statutory undertakers in respect of interference, but I am advised that never in any of these cases has compensation been provided on the generous lines laid down in the Fourth Schedule. Particularly, statutory undertakers have never been compensated hitherto in respect of interference with their appliances on the basis of loss of receipts, and that is a thing to which the local authorities par-

ticularly object. I understand that my hon. Friend the learned Solicitor-General has taken a considerable interest in this matter and has had discussions with the statutory undertakers as to the basis of compensation to be provided in this Bill. Unfortunately, he has not had similar conversations with the people who will have to pay the compensation. That is a rather unfortunate omission, because they are somewhat interested parties. Moreover, it seems as if he has not entirely satisfied even his statutory undertakers, because I see they too have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with compensation.
This is a very technical and difficult matter, and I do not think it is entirely appropriate to discuss the details at this stage. In order to save time I would make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Will he, between now and the Report stage, give the representatives of the local authorities, and possibly myself as sponsor of this Amendment, the opportunity of having a talk with him on the whole question of the basis of compensation to statutory undertakers? Perhaps I should also mention that the same thing applies to Clauses 29 and 30 of this Bill. Will he give an undertaking that he will inform the Minister and that appropriate Amendments will be introduced into the Bill? In order to put things right, my hon. Friend who is moving an Amendment on behalf of the statutory undertakings must do the same so that the status quo is preserved. If the Solicitor-General can give an assurance that he will take into full consideration the representations of the local authorities in this matter I shall be most happy to withdraw my Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) for the most constructive suggestion that he has put forward. He knows better than most the difficulties that lie in the way for anyone who is trying, for the first time, to bring statutory undertakers within a planning structure. I will not attempt to prove that by reference to past Acts which are well known to many Members. Statutory undertakers with their Parliamentary powers and Parliamentary protection, and also owing to the fact that they are practically never locally restricted—the undertaking is nation wide and, therefore, involves many other localities—are in a


particularly difficult position. I welcome the opportunity of discussing the difficulties and hearing the point of view of my hon. Friend and I am very happy to give him the assurance that I shall gladly meet him and report our conversation with the greatest fullness and detail to my right hon. Friend

Captain Duncan: I do not in any way wish to object to the suggestion that conversations should go on, but I would like to point out that statutory undertakers have certain privileges by Acts of Parliament. They also have certain duties to perform in their localities, and their rates of remuneration are fixed by Parliament. They should have the sympathy of Parliament when we are considering any alteration in the law. Statutory undertakers, whether supplying gas, water or electricity, have to plan in advance of what they want immediately. They have to look forward to the day when their areas may be further developed, and there may be the necessity for an extension of their plant or network. If land is to be taken from them it would upset their whole programme, and it is only right that fair compensation should be given. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will bear in mind the point of view of the statutory undertakers.

The Solicitor-General: I do not desire to occupy the time of the Committee with personal matters but as Chairman of an Inter-Departmental Committee I have already seen every statutory undertaker and have spent hours getting their points of view. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may take it that their points of view have been fully put, but I am anxious that they, the local authorities, and my right hon. Friend should be successfully tripartitely wedded.

Mr. Silkin: I am sure that the Solicitor-General is well able to look after himself against me, and does not need the support of the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan). In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 22.—(Extension and modification of powers and duties of statutory undertakers.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 28, line 7, at end, to insert:
or necessitated by a decision on an interim development application made by the person carrying on the undertaking for permission to develop land to which Section twenty-eight of this Act applies or by the revocation or modification of an interim development permission granted on such an application or by the postponement of the consideration of such an application.
These words are necessitated by the special provisions which are being introduced with regard to interim development, and for that purpose I commend them to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 28, after "1919," insert "and Part II of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 29, line 4, to leave out from the beginning to the first "the," in line 6, and to insert:
(4) The provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the making of an Order on the representation if any objection thereto is duly made, and, subject to those provisions in a case in which they have effect.
This Amendment should be read with a later Amendment in line 8. The two are part of a series on the subject of the new procedure with dealing with objections.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 8, leave out Sub-section (5).—[The Attorney -General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 23.—(Relief of statutory undertakers from obligations rendered impracticable by exercise of powers of this Part.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 30, line 6, to leave out from the beginning, to "the," in line 8, and to insert:
(3) The provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the making of an Order on the representation if any objection, thereto is duly made and subject to those provisions in a case in which they have effect.


This again applies to the provisions of the Schedule for dealing with objections and is in the form which has been seen before by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 10, leave out Sub-section (4).

In line 23, at end, add:
The provisions of Section thirteen of this Act as to the validity and date of operation of orders shall apply to an order made under this Section as they apply to such an order as is mentioned in the said Section thirteen."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions as to burial grounds.)

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 31, line 16, after "such" insert "reasonable."
I have a later Amendment—on page 31, line 24, at end, to insert:
and if any question shall arise as to the reasonableness of any conditions imposed under this Sub-section, that question shall be referred to the Secretary of State whose decision shall be final.
Perhaps I may discuss the two together. The Minister may have to make orders with regard to the treatment of a burial ground if it is included in the portion of the ground that the local authority is dealing with. While both the bishops I know would only make conditions which are reasonable, there might be some who would not be reasonable in the conditions they would wish to impose on the local authority. In that case we think the Minister himself should have the power of saying that the conditions the bishop wished to impose were unreasonable. It is with the object of protecting ourselves against what might possibly occur and putting ourselves in the hands of the Minister rather than the bishops that I move.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I mink the first Amendment is quite reasonable. We should desire that the conditions should be reasonable. But, in regard to the second, I do not know that I or the Home Office would accept the duty of deciding whether the conditions were reasonable. I think the contingency of unreasonable conditions being imposed is very remote and I am told by the Home Office that in all their experience they do not know of any such unreasonable conditions having been imposed on burial

grounds. I accept the first Amendment but cannot accept the second. I hope my hon. Friend will be content with that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 31, line 43, to leave out "Sub-sections (3) and (4)" and to insert, "Sub-section (3)."
The Amendment to which this is consequential was moved by me and accepted by the Committee, on page 24, line 5, and that was related to on a new Clause which I propose to introduce, proposing planning control of operations carried out by interim development authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 25.—(Provisions as to displacements from land acquired for purposes of this Part.)

6.45 p.m.

The Chairman: The Amendments here appear to fall into two groups. The first, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), and two in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) appear to go together. Perhaps with the leave of the Committee they might be discussed together. The two later Amendments also appear to go together.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: It might be convenient to take the Sub-sections together because, although two distinct points are raised, the words fit in as amended to the later words of the Amendment and it might be convenient to take the whole lot together.

The Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, after "residing," to insert "or carrying on business."
The object of the first Amendment is to allow the small shopkeeper to be replaced in the same way as the residential owner. It is as of much importance to any small trade or business to be replaced within the area from which it is ejected, as it is for any residential owner. Not only that, but it seems to me that the Committee would be failing in its duty if


it did not recognise that, when a small shopkeeper or trader has lost his premises by the action of a local authority carrying out a planning scheme, he ought at least to be in the same sort of position as he is when he has been blitzed out of his property. The small shopkeeper is dependent on his goodwill in the locality in which he lives. It means all the world to him whether he is turned out to find some other place of business or whether, in fact, some niche is found for him in the locality. For that reason I think the Committee ought to consider very carefully whether it would not be advisable to put the duty upon the local authority to find him replacement in the locality as well as look after the residential owner. May I read the Sub-section as it would be with my Amendments?
Where the carrying out of redevelopment on land acquired or appropriated by a local planning or highway authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act will involve the displacement of persons residing or carrying on business in premises thereon, it shall be the duty of the authority to secure that suitable alternative accommodation on terms not less favourable than those on which the premises from which displacement is to be effected are held is available for persons to be displaced.
The second point I would like to make is that whatever accommodation is offered to the ejected persons, be they residents, or small shopkeepers, or any other interest, it shall be suitable and also on terms not less favourable. If the words remain as they are in the Bill, the local authority will be tempted to try and palm off on somebody accommodation which was not suitable for their purposes or which was on less favourable terms. It might take the view that a residence offered to some small impecunious person was suitable if it was larger and on higher terms. The local authorities should be charged with the duty of seeing that what is offered corresponds approximately and reasonably to the building from which a person has been ejected. Only in that way can we get substantial justice, and I feel sure that the Committee and the Government will see the necessity of giving justice not only to the residential owner but to the small trader. I feel that this is an appeal that will fall on sympathetic ears.

Mr. Silkin: In spite of the emotional plea made by my hon. and learned Friend

the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), which it is difficult to resist, I feel that his series of Amendments would be unworkable. If you pull down a person's home, obviously you must give him another in its place and no compensation will meet the case. He must have a place to live in. Therefore, the obligation has properly been put on the local authority to provide residential accommodation for every family which is displaced. When it comes to businesses, you can, in the first place, meet the case to a certain extent by compensation which, I admit, is not always adequate. You have to consider how the provision of businesses in place of those that are acquired will fit into the plan and into the requirements. I have had considerable experience, which is not quite analogous to this, in slum clearance. We very often have a clearance area where there may be 20 or 25 shops. When you come to rehouse the existing population and want to provide the shops which are necessary for them, you find that possibly not more than half a dozen shops are necessary, and the others just disappear. Many of the shopkeepers have not really earned a proper living, others are not entirely dependent on their shops, and other shops are not desirable in themselves and ought not to be replaced.
Therefore, from a planning point of view, if you want to redevelop the area properly, it would be wrong necessarily to reinstate every shop or business that existed. Naturally, the local authority, wanting to save expenditure, will wish to reinstate as many of the shops and businesses as will be desirable. It will suit the local authority better to do that than to pay compensation. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh may feel satisfied that, in fact, wherever it is thought desirable or necessary that businesses should be reinstated, the local authority does its best to reinstate rather than compensate. I know that what I am saying may leave me open to the suggestion that this closes down a number of hard working and satisfactory businesses, but experience has shown that that is not the case. Very often, if the owner of a business is being compensated, he is only too pleased to go out of business and he has no particular desire to start another. In any case, it would be most unsatisfactory planning


and bad business for the shopkeepers as a whole if every one were reinstated exactly as before. Therefore, I feel that, being satisfied that wherever possible and desirable businesses will be reinstated, and that in other cases they will be compensated, the Committee can safely draw a distinction between the necessity to reinstate residents and the suggestion that all businesses should be reinstated.

Sir J. Mellor: I wish to join issue with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) when he says that it is less important to reinstate people in business than people in homes. I regard it as at least as important. When he sought to dismiss the claims of those who carry on business by saying that they can be compensated, he showed a complete misconception of the motives which actuate the great bulk of small traders. To them a business is something more than merely a source of profit; it is their livelihood and career. It is often a family business which has been handed down to them, and which they intend to pass on to their children. We ought not to dismiss the matter as though they can be adequately dealt with by way of compensation. If there is an interruption to the carrying on of their businesses and accommodation is not provided in advance of their displacement, their goodwill probably vanishes, and the consequences may be disastrous to their livelihood.

Mr. Colegate: I wish to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has rather glossed over the difficulty which these Amendments are designed to solve. He stated that certain businesses were undesirable and surplus and that 25 shops might be reduced to six. Who is to decide that the businesses are desirable?

Mr. Silkin: The planner.

Mr. Colegate: I have had recent experience where a serious conflict of interests immediately arises. I have an area in my mind which has been beautifully planned with an excellent shopping centre. The question at once came up, Who is to have the shops? A certain well-known movement plumped for the whole lot, and they got about half of them. The hon. Member for Peckham knows that there are two large groups, one, the Co-operative Society, and the other the multiple shops, and they are

a great source of anxiety and fear to small shops and businesses. They are terrified that in planning the small people will be pushed out by large capitalists, in the form of multiple shops on the one hand, and by large capitalists under the name of the Co-operative Wholesale Society on the other.
7.0 p.m.
To leave the possibility in many areas that small businesses and shopkeepers should lose their livelihood because of the political views of the town-planning authority concerned, will create dismay among those people. Some such provision, if not the actual words, as that outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend, is necessary to meet this case.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member has not faced the practical problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I cannot for the life of me see how this Amendment will be practicable. If the person concerned gets compensation, he has the opportunity of seeking out a suitable place and finding a niche in which he can put himself, after the transfer has taken place. If the Amendment is carried, it will be the duty of the local authority to find him a place, and they will perhaps put him where he does not want to go. The Amendment seems to assume that you have to reproduce in some new spot the conditions that we are trying to replace. Town planning will involve a great improvement. It may remove the whole population upon which a shopkeeper depended, and the last thing he would demand from the local authority would be that they should put him back on the spot where he was, if his population had moved elsewhere. He wants to move with his, population.
Who is to decide where he is to go? Who is to say which trader is to go to any particular shop? The Amendment does not solve these problems but puts an impossible task on the planning authority. All the authority can do is to plan a place and provide the possibilities of development. The people who are dispossessed get compensation, and they must settle in some other way, by their own private enterprise, where every one of them will go. Curiously enough, we seem now on this side of the Committee to be arguing in favour of private enterprise, while my hon. Friend opposite was arguing in favour of public enterprise.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope I may be able to assist the Committee to strike a balance in this difficult matter between the two major considerations of what we would desire and what really is practicable. Nobody would argue against the principle put forward by my hon. and learned Friend that we should do everything we can to mitigate hardship in the course of these operations, and in so far as we can mitigate hardship to the small trader we should do so. The question is, What is to be the method of doing it? The Clause lays the duty on the authority of providing accommodation for persons who are displaced from the premises in which they reside—residential premises—and to that obligation my hon. and learned Friend, no doubt with the best and most generous of motives, wishes to tack on the obligation that they should do the same in respect of business premises.
I ask him to pause and reflect, and to ask himself whether the same method of dealing with the two sorts of hardship is applicable. In my judgment it is not. There is a distinction between depriving a man of his house and depriving him of his business. The need, in the case of the house, is very urgent. The man must have a roof over his head. Without it he cannot exist. He cannot go out and search for new avenues of enterprise. He can do nothing. You must secure him a roof. That is one thing.

Dr. Russell Thomas: He cannot keep his roof over his head unless he has his business.

Mr. Morrison: Now we come to the monetary part of it. Loss of a man's house is the loss of the roof over his head, and deprives him of his base of operations, preventing him from doing anything. When we come to his business, we assume that he has a house somewhere in which to live. When you interrupt his calling and decrease his business, the remedy for that is compensation. The hon. Member who preceded me drew attention to the difficulties that the Amendment would impose upon the reconstruction of these areas, if we were to try to replace shop for shop.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Suppose there is a case of a man who has lost both his house and his shop in the same area. He had his house near the shop, so that it would be

convenient for his business. Under the Bill, his house will be put somewhere else, but no arrangement is proposed for his shop. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Morrison: In such circumstances it might be thought desirable by the local authority, if they were giving him a house in the same region, to try to provide him with a shop, if the business were of that character; but an obligation upon the local authority to provide shop for shop would be very difficult to discharge without slowing up all plans for new development. When a man is displaced from his business he gets compensation for loss of his income, for such elements as disturbance and for loss of profits, and if his goodwill is valuable, that is taken into account. The whole of his loss as an earner from being displaced from his business is assessed by the tribunal and compensated for in money. We say that when a man loses his house the local authority must find him a roof over his head, and that the proper way to deal with loss of earning capacity is to pay monetary compensation.
I ask those who support the Amendment this question: Would not most of these small business men prefer to be dealt with in that way? I honestly believe they would. Give the ordinary trader the option by saying: "We are bound to take the shop and we will give you somewhere else which we say you must take because we think it is a reasonable place to be in"; he would say, "I would rather take the money and look out for myself," assuming the compensation to be fair. In these areas, one shop is not like another. Shops vary tremendously as to position and frontage. If a man had a corner shop, would he be satisfied if he got a shop in the middle of the street? Really the task of reconstructing, so as to mirror in the minutest detail the frontages and situations of shops, would be impossible. If you can secure that a man gets adequate compensation, that is as far as you can go, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press that point any further.
The point in the other Amendments is that of requiring the authority to secure that alternative accommodation is available on terms not less favourable than those which the displaced person formerly enjoyed. The obligation is already im-


posed on the requiring authority to secure that the provision of other residential accommodation is on reasonable terms. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will, on consideration, think that that is better. To have the type of requirement for which he is asking would be impracticable. Reinstatement of people in exactly comparable property will be the exception rather than the rule. I ask him to imagine the weekly tenant of a tumbledown cottage, paying 3s. 6d. a week; he is bound to be replaced by the local authority, acting as a housing authority, in premises of a much superior character. They cannot reproduce the tumbledown cottage. He might have to pay a bit more for a better house. This would be reasonable treatment, but that may not be from his point of view equally favourable treatment. He might be a type of man who is equally happy in the tumbledown cottage, yet the local authority would be acting wrongly as a housing authority to create a lot of tumbledown cottages. The whole of these matters depend rather on the administration than on the strict words one tries to insert in the Statute. I am sure that to agree to this would be impracticable and would hinder planning. In our administration we all ought to do our best to secure that justice is done to the small trader as well as the resident.

Mr. Colegate: In a large number of cases in my area the vast majority of the people we are concerned with live over their shops. If in a new plan the local authority very wisely provides for the building of a number of shops is a man who is compulsorily moved, moved as regards his residence or as regards his business and residence?

Mr. Morrison: When a man's residence comprises a dwelling and shop the local authority are obliged to reinstate him in a dwelling. If they can get him alternative accommodation they would do their best to secure him premises roughly equal to what he previously occupied. They would give him a roof over his head. No money can replace that and that is the right way to do it—

Captain Cobb: The whole discussion has taken place from the point of view of the interests of the small trader who is to be displaced by one of these schemes. Surely the point of view of his customer

has also to be considered? Those of us who know these small traders realise they are doing a very real and valuable service in the communities in which they have their business, but I think the customer's point of view is also worth some consideration. My right hon. Friend has said that in his judgment the majority of these people would prefer to have compensation rather than alternative accommodation. I wonder whether it would be possible, since I realise there is great force in the argument he has used, for them to have the alternative presented to them of compensation or of alternative accommodation.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that would be practicable for the reasons I have stated What we want to do is to give a man enough money to compensate him for his loss of earning power so that he can start up somewhere else or maintain himself with a view to getting back to the area where his friends and neighbours are.

Commander Galbraith: I think there is very great weight in the argument which has been put forward that you cannot redevelop an area and put the same number of shops there as before, but the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has suggested to us, and I think he is probably correct, that a lot of these shopkeepers would like to follow their population out to the new area. I do not suppose there will be a really big difference between the total number of shops to meet the population so that there must be places available for people who have been displaced in the original area or area of overspill. In these circumstances I ask my right hon. Friend to consider what has been suggested to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). Surely it would be possible to offer the alternative either of compensation or one of these shops in the new district? At the present moment we do not know what is to happen to these new shops. I think there should be some indication that people who have been displaced should get an opportunity of following the population they have served if it is in any way practicable.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: As I understand this Amendment it would, if carried, hold up the whole planning if the local authority


could not fulfil these new conditions. In many cases it seems to me quite impracticable and might prevent the planning authorities from carrying out parts of the plan at all. I sympathise with the problem, but it is impossible for the local authority to guarantee that it can reproduce the same shopping or business condition in the new area as in the old one. For instance, if someone is a coal merchant operating from a backyard, is there to be reproduced in the new planning area not less favourable conditions for that merchant, is he to be allowed to sell coal from a backyard in a new planning area? We must have a sense of practicability. I sympathise with the problem that we cannot hold up planning.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards alternative accommodation, if the local authority were carrying out these operations and had a certain number of premises suitable for shops which would be accepted by these displaced shopkeepers as suitable, it would be wise to give him the accommodation so that the authority could cut down its bill for compensation. Local authorities are anxious to reduce the bill for loss of profits, and the sooner they can reinstate a man under these conditions the better. I can conceive cases where you might not want to reproduce shop for shop in a new area.

Mr. Colegate: Could these displaced shopkeepers be offered the first refusal? They feel they are being ousted in favour of other people.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I should like to support my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment. I think I have in my constituency at least as many small shopkeepers as he has or I had until the Ministry of Labour started calling them all up. We all ought to do everything we possibly can to help and protect the interests of the small shopkeeper. I am saying nothing against the co-operative societies but their position is vastly different. Theirs is a big organisation, and they can use the number of employees they have to carry on, but it is more difficult for the small and individual shopkeepers. I think it is up to us on both
sides of the Committee—

Mr. Woodburn: This would cover coops, as well.

Mr. Bull: Perhaps the hon. Member would let me finish and then have his say.

It has been mentioned that the small shopkeeper might be moved with those in the vicinity. I think the suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) is a very good one. To say to a man that you will compensate him for his business means to say that he shall be compensated but that it is not for him to say whether or not he agrees with the compensation. Under these circumstances anyone will accept money offered to him if he realises that he cannot get any more. I think he might be allowed the opportunity of having either a shop, or the compensation. The small shopkeeper depends for his business on his known friends more than on anything else. If he is taken away from them, he has largely lost his business to something like a co-operative society, or a multiple store. I think it would be a bad thing for the future of England, if we were to lose the small shopkeeper.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the Committee ought not to hurry over the consideration of this very important provision. So far, we have only really considered the provision in this Bill from the point of view of the small trader, but some of the things that the Minister said with regard to the owner-occupier of residential premises rather concern us. This part of the Bill, as I see it, can apply only to the powers acquired under Clauses 1 and 2 for overspill areas, land acquired under Section 9, on the ground that it is over-ripe or obsolete, and land incidentally acquired under the other provisions. We ought to be very careful about what we do with regard to the sitting occupiers. It seems quite impossible to divide them into two parts, as my right hon. Friend did—to treat the residential person as being quite distinct from the small shopkeeper. I would like the Committee to consider the position of the person who is displaced from his house. My right hon. Friend says it is all right if he is offered another place, with a roof above his head, but that offer means nothing to him if he cannot afford to pay the rent.
Take the case of a man with a large family, living in quite a proper house in the middle of an area which has been condemned as obsolete. That mad is going to be dispossessed. Is he going to to be offered another house with the same


provision for his family, subject to the Rents Restriction Acts, controlled; or an other house with more accommodation, at a much higher rent? The only people who are going to decide are the local authority, and there is going to be no appeal from them. They are the people who say, "That is the house we offer you. It is offered on reasonable terms. It may be that the rooms are larger; it may be a larger house; but if you do not take it, you must fend for yourself." That is not good enough protection for the small man who is living, it may be, in an obsolete area, if he is going to be dispossessed by the action of the State. And what about the small shopkeeper? The argument has been used by the hon. Member opposite that the local authority would be very keen to reinstate him, because of the rateable value. I cannot help wondering whether the rateable value which is obtained from these big multiple stores and co-operative societies—

Mr. Silkin: The point I made was that they would be very glad to do it because, among other reasons, it would save compensation. I did not mention rateable value.

Mr. Manningham - Buller: Rateable value was mentioned, if not by the hon. Member. Rateable value is a point of interest to local authorities, and it may well be that consideration of the rateable value will mean that the small trader goes somewhat to the wall. It is said that compensation for the small trader will be all that is required. You can offer the small trader another home at a higher rent, and say that he should rest content with that; although he has no means of earning his livelihood in the immediate neighbourhood, and no means of keeping contact with his old customers. I wonder very much, when we consider some of what has been said this evening, whether this planing is for the benefit of the British people or for the pleasure of the planners. We should consider very carefully what we do with the people who are bound to be dispossessed, deprived of their property, deprived of their businesses, and deprived of their livelihood, against their will. Is compensation going to enable them to start another business? Is compensation going to enable them to maintain their homes? That is a question which is vital in the consideration

of this matter. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this a little more. I appreciate the difficulties about fitting in all the shopkeepers, but I am not satisfied that, under this Clause as it stands, the best has been done, either for the small shopkeeper who has been dispossessed or for the resident in any of these areas.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: When I first met this Amendment on the Order Paper I was exceedingly gratified, and I said that something had been omitted from the Clause which this would put right. The more I thought about it, the less could I see how it was to be carried out in practice. I do not want to traverse again the arguments already advanced as to its impracticability—I do not think that half the available arguments have been advanced, but I do not wish to detain the Committee on that point, because the impracticability, when one considers it, of picking up the occupants from one area and giving them alternative accommodation, not less favourable, in another area, which must, in the majority of cases at any rate, be already occupied in the transitional stages, is overwhelming. The original Clause, as was distinctly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) just now, does not make any provision as to the type of alternative accommodation to be provided. I think the Bill falls short there at what might reasonably be expected. It is merely provided that, where displacement is involved, it shall be the duty of the authority, in so far as there is no other residential accommodation available on reasonable terms, to secure the provision of such accommodation. That is a very wide provision, and it may be subject to a vast number of interpretations, many of which may be limited very greatly by such alternative accommodation as may be available.
So far as I can see, there is no condition whatever as to the district in which the alternative accommodation is to be found. It may well turn out—because the authority is not required to provide accommodation within its own district, or within any definite radius—that the alternative accommodation which the local authority of Plymouth, for instance, might suggest, upon reasonable terms, would be within the constituency of my


hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill). The people would have a very long way to go, and would be very unhappy; but, so far as I can interpret this Clause, the principles which are being imposed on the local authority would have been properly carried out. I ask the Minister to give more attention to that point, because I feel that the drafting of the Clause leaves a great deal to be desired in order to carry out the intention which the Minister has already expressed.

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Daventry expressed a fear that current legislation was going to result in small traders being planned out of existence, but I am afraid that, as a result of this Amendment, the small trader is going to be planned into a kind of existence which he does not want to be in. I think many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have missed the point of the time factor in this matter. It is obviously going to be the case that, when these areas are demolished, the small trader will have to move into alternative premises in some other part of the town, or, indeed, into another town altogether. There will then ensue a long period while planning takes place and the new buildings are put up. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) that we must see that the new towns are planned and buildings put up with due regard to proper planning considerations, and without necessarily replacing the shops entirely as they were before. But what will be the effect of that? There will, no doubt, be shops in the new planned areas, but they will not resemble in the smallest degree the kind of shops that were there before, and who can say, after all this period of time, and after the small trader has moved away and established new connections, and has taken away, one hopes, most of his goodwill with him, that he will go back to his old surroundings and take premises where he lived before. I think this time factor very important.

Mr. Colegate: What does my Noble Friend mean when he says that the shops may not resemble the others? They may not, exactly, but people have still got to get their groceries and other things.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If a new town is planned on modern planning lines there cannot be the least doubt that they will not resemble in any degree the kind of premises that were there before.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: My Noble Friend must surely realise that what matters to the small shopkeeper is not whether his shop resembles his old shop, but whether he is in a locality in which his customers can go and get their goods from him.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: But one thing he does not want to have is a certain type of premises made available to him into which he does not want to go. What he does want is compensation in money and freedom of choice to do what he wants and not to be put back into the kind of existence which local authorities may impose.

Captain Cobb: Can my Noble Friend tell us what sort of authority he has in mind?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I should have thought it was obvious to any individual that the small trader, or anyone else, will want to have money and a freedom of choice to get premises, rather than be given premises which he does not want.

Major Studholme: I am sure the Committee will realise that this Amendment is promoted with a serious and genuine desire to safeguard the interests of the small trader. I am bound to agree with something which, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) said. From experience gained on the L.C.C. in rebuilding, I know it is not possible to provide shops for all the small shopkeepers who are displaced, but I want to support the suggestion by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) that small shopkeepers who are displaced should be given first refusal of the shops which are available.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am very sorry that with all my endeavours to convince my hon. Friends that their Amendment was impracticable I have not succeeded. It must be because of the late hour at which we are sitting. I thought that the case I have put against their Amendment was conclusive. It may be that I have missed something in the arguments which might have made me change my mind


and it is obviously a case where I ought to consider afresh what has been said. I do not see my way to meeting them yet, but the whole matter will be reconsidered by me if hon. Members will consent to withdraw their Amendment. They will understand that in saying this I cannot give a pledge that I can see any way of meeting them. I have listened to what they have said and I have failed to find any method of meeting them, but as they attach so much importance to it it is obvious that I should look at the whole thing again. If my hon. and learned Friend will consent to withdraw his Amendment, that is what I shall do.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I want to point out to my right hon. Friend that the reason why I consider this to be of prime importance is that we should exhaust every means of seeing if we could help the small trader. The particular type of trader we want to help is the person not yet hit by the enemy and whose house is going to be destroyed by the local authority. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend ought to see if there is any way possible in which he can help the small trader. It is for that reason we have proposed this Amendment. It is a matter of first importance, but in view of what he has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered:
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — A.B.C.A. BULLETIN ("WORK FOR ALL")

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: At this late hour I do not intend to take very long in introducing a subject which the Financial Secretary to the War Office has been good enough to come down to discuss with me. As long ago as 11th July I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War regarding the Army Bureau of Current Forces Leaflet No. 71. This leaflet is

entitled "Work for All" and gives a survey of the Government's White Paper on Unemployment Policy. I asked the Secretary of State for War if he would issue an additional bulletin written from the standpoint of those who took the view that a planned economy and the common ownership of industry will be the only remedy for unemployment. The Secretary of State for War replied:
Views advocated by any political party as such were not included in this background material."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1556.]
That is a point of view with which I cannot agree at all. I was very glad to see that the Army Bureau of Current Affairs had devoted their attention to this very important matter. I am not criticising them at all for having taken it up and for stating the traditional capitalist point of view on this matter. What I am surprised at is that the Socialist point of view was not given at all.
What does the Bulletin do? The Bulletin first assumes that the Government's White Paper states the cure for unemployment. Anyone reading the Bulletin and having no knowledge of this matter would be of the opinion that this Bulletin and the White Paper state something which is a cure for unemployment. I believe that a very large section of the population of this country take an opposite point of view, and I also know that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members of this House take the same view. We had evidence of that in the Debate on the Government White Paper, which was debated for three days on a Motion in these terms:
That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 6527 on Employment Policy and welcomes the declaration of His Majesty's Government …
After that Motion had been debated for three days, the Minister who was winding up on the Government's behalf gave the impression that because this Motion was carried the Government were therefore authorised to go forward with implementing the proposals in the White Paper, and that very nearly caused a Division. It was quite clear from the speeches made from this side of the House and from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour Party did not accept this Motion as one which committed them to the proposals in the White Paper. I mention that to


show there is another case apart from the case contained in the White Paper and described in the Bulletin.
It might be said that it was perfectly in order for one side of the question to be put in a Bulletin such as this, because most reasonable people assume that if one case is stated there is also a contra case, but the Bulletin does try to examine alternatives to the Government's proposals. I have it here and on page 12 there is this headline:
The Remedy—Why Cure Won't Work. Item 1. Two Ways It Cannot Be Done.
And then it reads as follows:
The problem we are up against is to try and make demand keep pace with production, and there are two ways of doing this which are so obvious that, we must discuss them first to see why such plausible remedies should not be acted upon immediately. … The first of these ways is, why not raise wages all round so that everybody can buy more? Secondly, why not print more money?
Quite rightly the writer of this Bulletin disposes of those two suggestions as ways for dealing with the problem of unemployment but, having taken on the responsibility of examining alternatives to the Government case, I certainly think, if this Bulletin were to be able to claim to be at all objective, it should have examined other views. It should, in particular, have examined the views which were expressed as criticisms of the White Paper by those who believe in the economic theories of Socialism. I do not think it would be of very great use if I were to examine at length the case of the Socialists against the Government's White Paper, but because it is some time since we discussed this, I might remind the House of the main proposals which the Government put forward. First of all it was said that there should be planned spending on public work. I agree that that is something which the Government should undertake. Secondly, there should be a variation in the rate of interest; thirdly, there should be variations in social security contributions so that when unemployment is increasing the contribution should be decreasing and vice versa; and, fourthly, there should be the licensing of labour and material.
All those are things which might have some slight effect on unemployment policy, but I do not think they can be counted upon as a cure for unemployment. They

cannot ensure a policy of genuine full employment. I say that for this reason: In spite of those four conditions, which the Government White Paper proposes, and which this Bulletin assumes will be sufficient to give full employment, they still leave the regulator of employment and production as it is to-day. The regulator of production in a capitalist economy—as everybody will agree, whether they favour a capitalist economy or not—is the expectation of profit. Those things are done which will yield profit; those things which do not cannot be done. So if we still retain profit as the regulator of production in our system it will always be possible and, indeed, even likely, that while we have a need for employed people to make things to use we shall also have, at the same time, idle men. It is this paradox of poverty in the midst of potential plenty which is one of the greatest condemnations of our present economic system. I, and others, maintain—and I do not suppose that the personal view of the Financial Secretary is very far different from ours on this—that if we are to have a policy of full employment the present regulator of production must disappear, and there must be planned production for use. If the present regulating function of the owners of industry is to be taken from them it is only honest and fair to say to them that the ownership of the means of production must pass from the individuals who own them to the community. That is a fundamental of Socialist economy.
However, I do not want to elaborate that this evening. What I am saying is that this is an alternative to the proposals of the White Paper, which is accepted by a considerable section of the Members in this House and people in the country. Whether we are right or wrong, in any Bulletin that sets out to consider this question this fact should have been stated. Particularly should it have been stated when the author of the Bulletin had gone to some trouble to try and investigate alternative cures for unemployment. I asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would issue another Bulletin putting this point of view. He said that it was not necessary, and as far as I know it has not been done. I should have thought that the sensible thing would have been to devote the first 16 or 17 pages of the Bulletin to the conventional capitalist point of view, and then the remaining two or three pages to the point of view I have


been expressing. If that had been done I would not have raised this matter at Question time or on the Adjournment. One does not expect to have "fifty-fifty" treatment in matters like this, but I do think the case should have been stated.
This is no mere academic point, because I believe the employment policy is going to be one of the major issues at the General Election. I asked the Prime Minister the other day what steps he was going to take to see that the main issues at the General Election were before those in the Forces who have the vote. He seemed very sympathetic to that point of view: We have the Army Bureau of Current Affairs putting forward one side and refusing to put forward the other, and it seems to me that on a matter of such fundamental importance as this those in the Forces have the right to know both sides. It may be argued that, from general reading in the newspapers and political knowledge, a soldier who hears a lecture on these lines by his officer may be able to get up and say, "There is another point of view." It may happen in a few rare cases that there are officers who would state the other point of view from their own knowledge without being briefed by A.B.C.A. to do so, but I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what he proposes to do—if anything. I should like to hear that he proposes to issue a bulletin stating the Socialist case on employment policy, because no one can deny that here we have the capitalist case. As it is a matter of principle, I should like to know how he is going to treat the fundamental issues of controversy in the future without issuing bulletins of that sort. I do not want anything I say to encourage A.B.C.A. to slide over controversial subjects. I am very glad that the Bulletin has been issued. All I ask is that the other side should be issued as well.

7.53 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): It is not for me on this occasion to debate whether or not the White Paper will bring about full employment. There was a three days Debate in June and the House accepted a Resolution taking note of the White Paper and welcoming the declaration that the Government accept as one of their primary aims and responsibilities the

maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the war. The hon. Member, however, contends that the Bulletin did not deal with alternative proposals to the Government's scheme as set forth in the White Paper. Having carefully read the Bulletin, I do not consider that in substance it goes beyond the White Paper. The hon. Member has referred to the heading "Two ways it cannot be done," the first one of which is, "Why not raise wages all round so that everyone can buy more?"; and the second is, "Why not print more money?" Both those questions were covered by Section (B) of the White Paper, which deals with the stability of prices. In any event neither proposal is put forward as an alternative to the Government scheme, but they would be equally relevant to any discussion of the problem of unemployment whether industry be privately or publicly owned.
Moreover, in discussing these two remedies under the heading, "Two wave it can't be done," the author does not enter into any discussion of the merits of either private enterprise or public ownership and makes no attempt to prejudge either of those issues. In my opinion, she rightly makes no attempt to prejudge them, nor does the White Paper prejudge them. This is, therefore, entirely consistent with what was said in the Debate on the White Paper. May I quote the Minister of Labour, who said:
The Government do not claim that the White Paper is the final solution of this problem. The proposals do not raise the question, for instance, whether industry will, for ever, be privately or publicly owned. … What we have tried to do, is to devise a conception which, however you may decide the ownership of industry by adjustments which may have to be made, seeks to obtain its objective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 213–4.]
That is, the objective set out in the White Paper. Later on in the same Debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated:
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour pointed out yesterday, the White Paper does not seek to take sides in the controversy between private enterprise and public ownership or public management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 412.]
The hon. Member has referred to the A.B.C.A. publications, and it might be convenient if I said a word about the A.B.C.A. discussions. Regimental officers are regularly reminded that, as chairman


of the A.B.C.A. discussions, it is their business to allow their men full freedom of opinion and comment. No point of view is to be excluded from the discussions and officers are particularly warned not to suppress opinions or to land themselves in a position of being censors of opinion. It is not the officer's duty to suppress any expression of opinion, however controversial, but to invite other members of the audience to say whether or not they agree. It is found in practice that this self-regulating device works in almost any average platoon. The average A.B.C.A. discussion takes place at platoon level. Many thousands of regimental officers have had the principle explained to them at A.B.C.A. training courses. It is set down in unambiguous terms in the A.B.C.A. Handbook issued for British officers, and it is reiterated in almost every issue of "Current Affairs." Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from page 1 of the edition to which my hon. Friend takes exception, the copy which deals with the White Paper. These are the instructions to officers who are to take charge of the discussions:
If you can, try to brief some of the members of your group to come as delegates for special points of view. There are several. Most units should have a fair selection to choose from. There is the sturdy trade unionist, the craftsman, the labourer, the rugged individualist who doesn't believe in planning at all, the man who lived in one of the Special Areas before the war. the youth who went straight into the Army and has never done a man's job at a man's rate, the regular soldier, the bank clerk, the miner, the agricultural worker and so on. Each one of these will have a slightly different, slant on the problem. … Whatever way you decide to tackle this question, whether by staged commission or by straight discussion in the normal manner, try to see that all points of view are represented.

Mr. Tinker: Is it possible for Members to see that document?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend can be assured that copies of this document are in the Library of the House. I should have thought that what I have read made it perfectly clear that there is the freest possible discussion in these A.B.C.A. gatherings. The object of this particular publication was not to discuss the merits or demerits of private ownership or public ownership, but to set out as a basis for discussion the contents of the White Paper. There will be general agreement

on the great value of the A.B.C.A. discussions, which have formed such an essential part of Army life. I trust that the House will agree that the A.B.C.A. authorities at the War Office were wise to restrict its scope to what has been approved by Parliament without Division. I am very sorry to say that we do not feel ourselves in a position to accede to what my hon. Friend requested, the issue of a supplement to this edition.

Mr. Driberg: Before the Minister resumes his seat, may I ask whether he does not think that it is a little hypocritical—not in him, of course, but in the War Office—to lay such stress on the freedom of discussion and the airing of different opinions in the A.B.C.A. groups, unless sufficient data on all sides are given on which those opinions can be based? As things are, the man who supports the status quo is fed by A.B.C.A. bulletins with all the latest information, whereas the man who opposes the status quo—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): These remarks of the hon. Member seem to be a great deal more than a question. The hon. Member seems to be making another speech.

Mr. Driberg: With all due respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have been trying to put my remarks in the form of a question, but I think there is still a minute or two to go.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is, but I have already informed the hon. Member that there is another reason why we should be brief.

Mr. Driberg: Would it not be possible, in a case where Parliament has had a major Debate on the subject dealt with in an A.B.C.A. bulletin, for at any rate a brief, objective account of that Debate always to be included in the Bulletin?

Mr. Henderson: That is an entirely different matter. What we are discussing to-night is whether or not the particular issue of the A.B.C.A. Bulletin to which my hon. Friend has referred has gone outside the subject of the White Paper, and raised only one or two remedies without raising other remedies. I must confess that I should be very sorry to have


seen public ownership put down as No. 3 of those remedies which will not work.

Mr. H. Lawson: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Henderson: Therefore, one realises the difficulty which would arise if one were to go outside the scope of the While Paper. My case has been that this issue of the A.B.C.A. Bulletin has been substantially within the scope of the White Paper. To do what my hon. Friend has just suggested and issue a supplement containing the reports of the Debates—

Mr. Driberg: No, not a supplement, but to include a brief summary of the Debate in the Bulletin.

Mr. Henderson: It would be a very difficult task to undertake, and might make invidious distinctions, to decide which Member's speech was to be reported, and which Member's speech was not to be reported.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eight o'clock.